Tag Archives: Sustainability

Using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Factors for the promotion of Sustainable Tourism Development

Featuring excerpts from one of my latest article focused on the intersection of ESG performance and the promotion of the sustainable tourism agenda – published through Business Strategy and the Environment:

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors for sustainable tourism development: The way forward toward destination resilience and growth, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/bse.70366

1 Introduction

Sustainable tourism is based on the principles of sustainable development (Fauzi 2025). It covers the complete tourism experience, including concerns related to economic, social and environmental issues (Bang-Ning et al. 2025; Wang and Zhang 2025). Its long-term dual objectives are to improve the tourists’ experiences of destinations they visit and to address the needs of host communities (Kim et al. 2024). Arguably, all forms of tourism have the potential to become sustainable if they are appropriately planned, led, organised and managed (Camilleri 2018). Destination marketers and tourism practitioners who pursue responsible tourism approaches ought to devote their attention to enhancing environmental protection within their territories, to mitigating the negative externalities of the tourism industry on the environment and society, to promoting fair and inclusive societies to enhance the quality of life of local residents, to facilitating exposure to diverse cultures, while fostering a resilient and dynamic economy that generates jobs and equitable growth for all (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2023; Scheyvens and Cheer 2022).

Conversely, irresponsible tourism practices can lead to the degradation of natural habitats, greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of biodiversity through air and water pollution from unsustainable transportation options, overconsumption of resources, waste generation and excessive construction (Banga et al. 2022; H. Wu et al. 2024). Indeed, any nation’s overdependence on tourism may give rise to economic difficulties during economic crises, such as increased cost of living for residents, seasonal income and precarious employment conditions, leakage of revenues when profits go to foreign-owned businesses and displacement of traditional industries like fishing and agriculture, among other contingent issues (Mtapuri et al. 2022; Mtapuri et al. 2024).

In addition, tourism may trigger social and cultural externalities like overcrowding and an increased strain on public services, occupational hazards for tourism employees and inequalities due to uneven distribution of benefits, displacement of local communities to give way to tourism infrastructures, the loss of authenticity in local traditions, an erosion of local identities and traditional lifestyles under external influence, as well as increased crime rates or illicit activities (Ramkissoon 2023).

In light of these challenges, this research seeks to provide a better understanding of how environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions can be embedded within sustainable tourism, to strengthen long-term destination resilience and economic growth. Debatably, although the use of the ESG dimensions is gaining traction in various corporate suites, their application in tourism and hospitality industry contexts is still limited. Notwithstanding, ESG research is still suffering from inconsistent conceptualisations, measurements and reporting systems (Legendre et al. 2024).

To address this gap, this contribution outlines five interrelated objectives: (1) It relies on a systematic review methodology to investigate the intersection of ESG principles and sustainable tourism; (2) It synthesises the findings and maps thematic connections related to environmental stewardship, social equity and governance structures in tourism destinations; (3) It evaluates ESG-based strategies that address carrying capacity limitations, overtourism, climate vulnerabilities, sociocultural tensions and institutional accountabilities; (4) It advances theoretical insights; and (5) It develops a comprehensive conceptual framework, to guide policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders in embedding ESG considerations into tourism planning and development, thereby promoting environmental sustainability, socioeconomic resilience and corporate governance.

Guided by these objectives, this timely research addresses four central research questions. Firstly, it asks: [RQ1] How have high-impact scholarly works conceptualised and operationalised ESG dimensions in order to promote sustainable travel destinations? Secondly, it seeks to answer this question: [RQ2] What empirical evidence exists on the effectiveness of ESG-aligned strategies in enhancing destination resilience and fostering long-term economic growth? The third question interrogates: [RQ3] What academic implications arise from this contribution, and how might its insights shape the future research agenda? Finally, the study seeks to address this question: [RQ4] How and in what ways are the ESG pillars interacting within sustainable tourism policy and practices? This research question recognises that the ESG dimensions may or may not always align harmoniously with the sustainable tourism agenda.

Although the sustainable tourism literature has often been linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to broader corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks, the explicit integration of ESG principles into this field is still underdeveloped (Back 2024; Legendre et al. 2024; Lin et al. 2024; Shin et al. 2025). Much of the existing literature examines the environmental, social and governance (E, S and G) dimensions in isolation (Moss et al. 2024), with scholars often addressing, for example, environmental sustainability through climate adaptation strategies or governance via destination management systems, without adequately considering their interdependence or combined impact on tourism outcomes (Comite et al. 2025; Kim et al. 2024). This pattern was clearly evidenced in the findings of this research.

This article synthesises the findings of recent high-impact publications focused on sustainable tourism through the ESG performance lens, in order to advance a holistic conceptual model that bridges academic scholarship and policy application. In sum, this proposed theoretical framework clarifies how environmental stewardship, social inclusivity and governance accountability are shaping sustainable tourism trajectories. In conclusion, it puts forward original theoretical as well as the managerial implications. Theoretically, it enriches the sustainable tourism literature with an ESG-integrated analytical framework grounded in systematic evidence. Practically, it offers an actionable, governance-oriented blueprint that aligns environmental, social and economic objectives for responsible tourism planning and development. Hence, it provides a tangible roadmap that embeds ESG dimensions and their related criteria into sustainable tourism strategies for destination resilience and long-term competitiveness.

2 Background

The evolution of sustainable and responsible tourism paradigms can be traced back to the environmental consciousness that characterised the 1960s and 1970s. At the time, several governments were concerned over the ecological and cultural consequences of mass tourism. Early initiatives, such as the European Travel Commission’s 1973 campaign for environmentally sustainable tourism, sought to mitigate the negative externalities of rapid sector growth. Subsequently, South Africa’s 1996 national tourism policy introduced the concept of responsible tourism, that essentially emphasised community well-being as an integral component of destination management. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has since positioned sustainable tourism as a catalyst for global development.

Eventually, the declaration of 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development has underscored its potential to contribute directly to the United Nations SDGs. Specific targets like SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) highlight the sector’s capacity to create jobs, preserve ecosystems, safeguard cultural heritage and benefit vulnerable economies (Mahajan et al. 2024), particularly in small island states and least developed countries (Grilli et al. 2021). However, an ongoing achievement of these objectives necessitates balancing environmental, social and economic interests, a process that is often complicated by the diverse, and at times conflicting, priorities of a wide array of stakeholders (Civera et al. 2025).

Governments are important actors in this process. They can influence sustainable tourism outcomes through regulation, education, destination marketing and public–private partnerships (Dossou et al. 2023; Mdoda et al. 2024). Generally, their underlying policy rationale is to ensure that tourism development supports long-term economic growth while protecting cultural and natural assets, in order to improve community well-being (Andrade-Suárez and Caamaño-Franco 2020; Breiby et al. 2020). Yet this ambition is often undermined by market pressures, limited institutional capacities and the difficulty of translating high-level sustainability commitments into enforceable measures at the local levels.

In this light, the ESG framework a concept that was popularised by a United Nations Global Compact (2004) report, entitled, “Who Cares Wins”, offers a coherent approach for the integration of environmental stewardship, social equity and institutional accountability for the advancement of responsible tourism planning and development. Hence, in this context, practical tools are required in order to translate inconsistent guiding principles into actionable destination management strategies. For instance, the carrying capacity acts as a practical control mechanism within such a theoretical framework (Mtapuri et al. 2022; O’Reilly 1986). It ensures that tourism figures remain compatible with the preservation of natural, cultural and heritage assets. For the time being, there are challenges as well as opportunities for governments to translate the holistic vision of sustainable tourism policies into robust governance systems that maintain economic vitality and the integrity of their destinations.

4 Results

The thematic analysis indicates that the sustainable tourism concept is interconnected with each of the ESG’s dimensions. The findings suggest that sustainable tourism integrates environmental stewardship, social responsibility and sound governance to advance ecological preservation, community well-being and organisational accountability. Hence, it supports long-term destination resilience. The bibliographic results report that each of the ESG components is not only essential for sustainable tourism but also interdependent pillars that enable the sector to thrive in a responsible manner. Therefore, it is imperative for governments to safeguard natural and cultural heritage, empower local communities and foster transparent and effective governance, to ensure the sustainable development of destinations as well as their economic growth (Chong 2020; Grilli et al. 2021; Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The ESG framework, along with its criteria, serves as an important lens through which stakeholders can shape and evaluate sustainable tourism policies and practices (Işık, Islam, et al. 2025). Table 1 features the most conspicuous themes that emerged from this study. Additionally, it presents definitions for each theme along with illustrative research questions examined by the academic contributions identified in this systematic review.

4.1 The Environmental Dimension of Sustainable Tourism

The tourism industry is dependent on natural ecosystems. Therefore, it is in the tourism stakeholders’ interest to protect the environment and to minimise their externalities (J. S. Wu et al. 2021). There is scope for them to promote the conservation of land and water resources (Sørensen and Grindsted 2021). Water scarcity is a pressing global concern that is amplified in many tourist hotspots (WTTC 2023). However, tourism development and its related infrastructural expansion ought to respect ecological thresholds and preserve green spaces, particularly in urban areas. Hotels, resorts and attractions could implement water-saving technologies such as rainwater harvesting, low-flow fixtures and wastewater recycling (Foroughi et al. 2022). These sustainable measures reduce stress on local water supplies and help preserve aquatic ecosystems. In addition, tourism entities can avail themselves of renewable energy sources like solar panels, wind turbines, et cetera, and may adopt energy-efficient appliances and lighting solutions (Abdou et al. 2020; Zhan et al. 2021).

The rapid growth of tourism has historically been linked to environmental degradation through waste accumulation and pollution (Bekun et al. 2022). Circular economy strategies including improved waste management and pollution control through responsible waste disposal as well as reducing, reusing and recycling certain resources, can help decrease the industry’s externalities, but also create healthier spaces for tourists and staff (Camilleri 2025; Dey et al. 2025; Jain et al. 2024).

Tourism significantly contributes to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and accommodation (Kim et al. 2024). Addressing climate change within sustainable tourism is critical to reducing the sector’s ecological footprint and enhancing destination resilience to climate impacts (Comite et al. 2025; Scott 2021). Many tourism businesses invest in carbon offset programs including reforestation, renewable energy projects and community-based conservation as mechanisms to offset their emissions (Banga et al. 2022). Eco-certifications such as Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), Green Globe, EarthCheck, GreenKey and LEED, among others, encourage the adoption of low-carbon practices. They enable practitioners and consumers to make environmentally conscious choices (Dube and Nhamo 2020; Gössling and Schweiggart 2022). Moreover, green transportation policies can encourage public transit, cycling, walking and the adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles for tourism-related travel, thereby reducing carbon footprints (Kim et al. 2024).

Ecologically sensitive zones such as national parks and marine reserves, which are home to wildlife, fragile species and habitats are some of the most visited places by tourists (Partelow and Nelson 2020; Tranter et al. 2022). Hence, they should be protected from overtourism by implementing visitor limits, buffer zones and conservation fees to reduce human impact (Leka et al. 2022). Restoration projects like reforestation, coral reef rehabilitation and wetland conservation are good examples of proactive environmental stewardship linked to tourism (Herrera-Franco et al. 2020; Muhammad et al. 2021). Environmental sustainability also depends on shaping tourist behaviours and fostering responsible activities like environmental awareness campaigns, community involvement in conservation efforts as well as engagement in low-impact alternatives like birdwatching, hiking and sustainable diving, among other stewardship practices (Khuadthong et al. 2025; J. S. Wu et al. 2021).

4.2 The Social Dimension of Sustainable Tourism

Sustainable tourism outcomes extend beyond environmental stewardship principles. Its social dimension encompasses criteria related to the preservation of cultural heritage; community engagement and empowerment; social equity, inclusion and cohesion; as well as responsible tourist behaviours, among other aspects (Bellato et al. 2023; Bianchi and de Man 2021; Joo et al. 2020a; Xu et al. 2020; Yang and Wong 2020; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2023). Sustainable tourism practices are clearly evidenced through improved relationships between tourists and local host communities, resulting in tangible benefits to both parties (Ramkissoon 2023).

The tourism industry can be considered a catalyst for cultural appreciation as well as a threat to cultural authenticity (Bai et al. 2024; H. Wu et al. 2024). Therefore, host destinations need to safeguard their cultural heritage, historical landmarks and monuments. Regulations and visitor management policies ought to be in place to limit wear and degradation of archaeological and religious sites, as well as historically important buildings and architectures (Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The social dimension of sustainable tourism entails that destination marketers preserve their cultural heritage and authenticity. They may do so by showcasing indigenous tastes and aromas of the region, including local foods and wines, and by promoting traditional music, dance, arts, crafts, et cetera, to appeal to international visitors (Andrade-Suárez and Caamaño-Franco 2020). This helps them keep their cultural legacy and maintain a competitive edge (Bellato et al. 2023). As a result, incoming tourists would be in a better position to appreciate local customs and folklore. Notwithstanding, their behaviours can play a crucial role in shaping social dynamics within destinations, as their activities might support community well-being and promote equitable access to tourism benefits (Mamirkulova et al. 2020).

However, policymakers are expected to manage visitor flows within a destination’s carrying capacity to prevent overcrowding, and to avoid social tensions, while fostering inclusivity, mutual respect and positive interactions between visitors and host communities (Back 2024; Koens et al. 2021). Perhaps, destination management organisations should educate visitors about cultural sensitivity issues to demonstrate their respect to host communities (Foroughi et al. 2022; Joo et al. 2020b; Mdoda et al. 2024). For example, they may raise awareness of appropriate behaviours in specific contexts, including dress codes and etiquette to mitigate cultural clashes, discourage exploitative tourism practices like invasive photography in certain settings and prevent unethical animal encounters, in order to foster mutual respect, enhance positive exchanges and safeguard community values (Ghaderi et al. 2024).

The sustainable tourism concept encourages participatory tourism planning. It prioritises the empowerment of indigenous communities in tourism decision-making and policy formulation (Ramkissoon 2023). The involvement of local residents may require capacity building to equip them with relevant skills to participate in the tourism sector, and to foster their economic advancement (Mamirkulova et al. 2020). The proponents of sustainable tourism frequently refer to the provision of fair employment opportunities, including for native populations, in terms of equitable wages and salaries, as well as decent working conditions, in order to enhance community livelihoods and social cohesion (Mtapuri, Camilleri, et al. 2022). Very often, they report that destinations would benefit from sustainable tourism practices that build social capital and reduce economic leakage, by incentivising local entrepreneurs and community-based tourism initiatives to ensure that financial returns remain within the community (Chong 2020; Partelow and Nelson 2020).

The systematic review postulates that the sustainable tourism concept is meant to promote social justice and reduce inequalities (Bianchi and de Man 2021). The extant research confirms that it fosters social inclusivity across various demographic groups in society by supporting gender equality, thereby enriching the sector’s diversity (Bellato et al. 2023; A. Khan et al. 2020). The industry’s labour market may include individuals hailing from different backgrounds in society, including young adults, women, senior citizens, immigrants and disabled people (Bianchi and de Man 2021; Camilleri et al. 2024). Tourism businesses are encouraged to develop infrastructures and services that accommodate people with accessibility requirements in order to broaden their destinations’ reach and social value (Sisto et al. 2022).

4.3 The Governance Dimension in Sustainable Tourism

The integration of environmental and social dimensions of sustainable tourism ultimately depends on transparent, accountable and participatory governance mechanisms (Joo et al. 2020b; Putzer and Posza 2024). Effective governance provides the institutional framework through which environmental stewardship and social responsibility are translated into actionable policies, coordinated initiatives and measurable outcomes (Back 2024; Ivars-Baidal et al. 2023).

Governments are entrusted to set the foundation for sustainable tourism through national and local tourism policies that clearly define sustainability goals, action plans and regulatory measures (Gössling and Schweiggart 2022). Such policies may be related to environmental and/or social regulations. They may enforce environmental impact assessments (EIAs), zoning laws and they could be meant to protect cultural heritage (Farsari 2023). Moreover, they may be intended to encourage or incentivise environmental sustainability practices (e.g., through eco-label or certification schemes) (Bekun et al. 2022). Alternatively, they may be focused on the destinations’ carrying capacity limits and/or on their overtourism aspects, if they specify visitor limits, and/or refer to taxes, levies or fees imposed on visitors or tourists (Leka et al. 2022).

Sustainable tourism governance depends on multisector cooperation (Farsari 2023) that may usually involve government departments and agencies, the private sector that may comprise accommodation service providers, airlines, tour operators, travel agencies as well as local communities, NGOs and international organisations, among others. Policymakers need to balance diverse stakeholders’ interests and to instil their shared responsibilities (Siakwah et al. 2020). Good governance can ultimately ensure that public–private partnerships would translate to long-term, sustainable tourism strategies related to responsible planning and development that consider specific socioenvironmental aspects of destinations: green building standards and the use of renewable energy, and/or emergency and crisis management issues (Scheyvens and Cheer 2022).

Policymakers are expected to conduct regular assessments and evaluations of tourism practitioners’ environmental, social and economic outcomes operating in their jurisdictions. They need to scrutinise corporate ESG disclosures, particularly in certain domains (e.g., in European contexts, where they ratified the corporate sustainability reporting directive) (Camilleri 2025). Governments should monitor business practices to safeguard their employees’ well-being, environmental sustainability and the communities’ interests (Putzer and Posza 2024). They may avail themselves of sustainability indicators and benchmarking tools such as GSTC’s criteria that are used to measure progress in sustainable tourism, in terms of sustainable management (planning, monitoring, governance); socioeconomic benefits to the local community, cultural heritage preservation and environmental protection (Wang and Zhang 2025). Such responsible and ethical practices increase trust and lead to continuous improvements in the tourism industry.

Discussion

The holistic integration of environmental, social and governance dimensions in sustainable tourism collectively contributes to enhance destination resilience and sustainable economic growth. The conservation of natural attractions such as beaches, forests and coral reefs will enable destinations to remain competitive. Therefore, there is scope in implementing climate-friendly measures, including reforestation and sustainable water management, among others, to reduce vulnerability to floods and storms. At the same time, they may curb ocean-level increases. Pollution prevention, waste minimization and circular economy strategies can help destinations maintain environmental quality, that is crucial for their ongoing tourism appeal. Notwithstanding, eco-certifications of responsible destinations can attract environmentally conscious travelers, who may be willing to pay more to visit sustainable tourism destinations.

The effectiveness of eco-certifications is amplified when combined with socially responsible practices. The integration of community empowerment, cultural heritage preservation, and social inclusiveness into tourism planning and development can contribute to increasing the sustainability of a destination. Hence, the tourism industry could add value to the environment as well as to local communities. By aligning sustainable development with local priorities and by promoting responsible tourism practices, destinations can provide authentic cultural and heritage experiences, thereby enhancing their visitor satisfaction and revisit intentions, in the future. In turn, this reinforces both market differentiation and long-term social resilience. Furthermore, as entrepreneurship flourishes, the local communities would benefit from circulating incomes and reduced economic leakages. Such outcomes are conducive to tourism growth.

However, policymakers must implement effective tourism governance to ensure that these economic gains are sustainable. Transparent governance fosters trust among stakeholders and facilitate sustainable growth and competitiveness. By implementing strategic planning and regulations, local authorities can ensure that tourism development| does not overwhelm infrastructure or degrade natural and cultural assets. This creates a balanced environment where entrepreneurship and community benefits coexist with long-term destination resilience. Therefore, sound governance prevents over-tourism and unmanaged expansion, whilst protecting the destinations’ assets. Robust tourism governance frameworks foster stable policy environments, attract further investments and enable long-term planning. Additionally, strong crisis management capabilities can equip destinations to handle unforeseen circumstances including pandemics, natural disasters and economic shocks.

The above analysis underlines that environmental, social and governance dimensions are deeply interlinked to one another and mutually-reinforcing within sustainable tourism. An integrative ESG approach conceptualizes sustainable tourism as a synergistic framework that reconciles ecological integrity, social equity, and institutional effectiveness, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Theoretical implications

This study adds value to the growing body of literature focused on sustainable tourism governance (Gössling & Schweiggart, 2022; Işık et al., 2025; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023). It clearly identifies key theoretical underpinnings of articles focused on the intersection of ESG dimensions and sustainable tourism practices. The bibliographic findings suggest that the stakeholder theory (Bellato et al., 2023; Ivars-Baidal et al., 2023; Matsali  et al., 2025; Mdoda  et al., 2024) and the institutional theory (Bekun et al., 2022; Dossou et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2020; Saarinen, 2021; Zhan et al., 2021) shed light on the role of government policies, corporate responsibility and community engagement in shaping the sustainable tourism agenda and different settings (Lin et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025). Interestingly, the Social Identity Theory clarifies how various stakeholder groups, including residents, tourists and industry practitioners, are aligning their behaviors with shared norms and identities that promote corporate ESG values (Yang & Wong, 2020). Drawing on Cognitive Appraisal Theory, it indicates that stakeholders’ evaluation of ESG-related risks and opportunities influences their emotional responses and subsequent engagement in sustainability initiatives (Foroughi et al., 2022). The Theory of Empowerment further explains how participatory governance and transparent decision-making can enhance community agency, fostering stronger local support for ESG-driven tourism strategies (Joo et al., 2020a).

In line with the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Attitude–Behavior–Context (ABC) Theory, the findings highlight that pro-sustainability intentions are by attitudes toward ESG as well as by perceived behavioral control and contextual enablers such as policy frameworks and market incentives (Joo et al., 2020b; Khuadthong et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2021). Moreover, the Value–Belief–Norm Theory demonstrates how environmental values and moral obligations underpin behavioral commitments to ESG-aligned tourism (Kim et al., 2024).

From a governance perspective, the Evolutionary Governance Theory clarifies how institutional arrangements, stakeholder relationships and regulatory norms adapt over time to embed ESG principles in tourism planning (Partelow & Nelson, 2020). The review suggests that tourism stakeholders’ decision-making including during uncertain situations, can be enriched through Decision Theory and by referring to the Interval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy Set approach (Rani et al., 2022). These theories enable robust, data-informed prioritization of ESG objectives.

Furthermore, the findings underscore the recursive relationship between the human agency and the structural constraints. The results suggest that stakeholder actions can influence ESG governance systems. This argumentation is congruent with the Structuration Theory (Saarinen, 2021). Meanwhile, the Resource-Based View (Wang & Zhang, 2025; Zhu et al., 2021) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Wang & Zhang, 2025) frame ESG adoption as a strategic asset, where unique sustainability capabilities can enhance competitive advantage and long-term destination resilience.

Managerial implications

This research yields clear implications for policymakers, industry practitioners and local communities of tourist destinations. It postulates that the ESG dimensions can provide these stakeholders with a strategic framework to balance growth with long-term resilience. It confirms that ESG policies necessitate a comprehensive approach, that combines environmental conservation, social inclusion, and responsible governance considerations, rather than addressing them individually. Arguably, there may be variations in the importance, focus and implementation of ESG dimensions in tourism, in different contexts, due to the host countries’ economic capacities regulatory frameworks, social priorities and/or environmental challenges. As a result, the effects or outcomes of ESG initiatives are not uniform across destinations (Lin et al., 2024).

In addition, the size of the businesses can also influence their commitment to account and disclose ESG-related aspects of their performance. Large multinational travel and hospitality firms could benefit from economies of scale, in terms of greater financial, human, and technological resources, resulting in their ESG alignment and compliance with societal norms and regulatory frameworks. They can afford dedicated sustainability teams, advanced data management tools, and external consultants to ensure accurate measurement, benchmarking and disclosure of ESG performance. In stark contrast, the smaller firms may face resource constraints, limited expertise, and higher relative costs for data collection and reporting. Such non-commercial activities can hinder their ability to systematically track, measure and communicate ESG performance, placing them at a comparative disadvantage, relative to their larger counterparts.

From an environmental perspective, policy makers should operationalize carrying capacity thresholds and implement adaptive management systems to safeguard ecosystems, optimize resource utilization, and enhance climate resilience. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of environmental impacts are essential to ensure that tourism activities remain within sustainable limits. Proactive interventions including the promotion of low-carbon transportation, the adoption of renewable energy, efficient resource management, and waste reduction are critical for aligning tourism development with ESG objectives. Such strategies preserve biodiversity and can contribute to the long-term sustainability of destinations.

The social dimension emphasizes the equitable distribution of tourism benefits and the preservation of cultural integrity. Overtourism threatens community well-being through inflated living costs, cultural commodification and resident–visitor tensions. Hence, managers should foster participatory governance structures that empower local communities, entrepreneurs and cultural custodians in decision-making processes. Technological innovations including artificial intelligence (AI) solutions that monitor visitor flows can further support socially responsible destination management. At the same time, stakeholder engagement ensures that tourism operations retain their legitimacy in society.

Robust governance mechanisms underpin these strategies. Practitioners can align policies with international sustainability standards in order to facilitate transparent accountability. The implementation of ESG performance indicators, enforceable visitor limits and adaptive regulatory measures, such as dynamic pricing or quotas enable evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvements in responsible destinations. The strengthening of institutional capacities and local skills ensures that governance frameworks are effective and sustainable over time.

Financial innovation is essential for sustainable tourism development. Policy makers ought to invest in green technologies and infrastructures to protect the natural environment from externalities. They can provide incentives and funds to support practitioners in their transition to long-term sustainability. By embedding ESG principles, destinations are in a better position to enhance their resilience to environmental and social shocks, strengthen their reputation and image, whilst maintaining their competitiveness in the global tourism market.

Policymakers are encouraged to increase their enforcement of regulations to trigger responsible behaviors. At the same time, they need to nurture relationships with stakeholders. The hoteliers should embed social innovations and environmentally sustainable practices into core strategies and operations. As for local communities, it is in their interest to actively participate in tourism planning and development, to ensure they preserve their cultural heritage and share tourism benefits in a fair manner. Collectively, this contribution’s integrated ESG approach positions destinations for sustained economic growth while safeguarding environmental and social well-being.

Conclusion

This article reinforces the significance of integrating ESG principles into sustainable tourism strategies. By addressing environmental concerns, fostering social inclusivity, improving governance frameworks, and ensuring economic viability, stakeholders can contribute to a more resilient and responsible tourism sector. This research demonstrates that sustainable tourism is most effectively achieved through the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions, which together foster long-term destination resilience and economic growth. Environmentally, sustainable tourism requires the preservation of natural ecosystems, efficient resource use, and proactive measures to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Practices such as water-saving technologies, renewable energy adoption, waste reduction, and circular economy strategies not only mitigate ecological impacts but also enhance the attractiveness and competitiveness of destinations.

From a social perspective, sustainable tourism supports community empowerment, cultural preservation, inclusivity, and social equity. By engaging local residents in planning and decision-making, promoting equitable employment, and safeguarding cultural heritage, destinations can foster positive resident–visitor interactions and enhance the overall visitor experience. Responsible tourist behavior, participatory governance, and cultural sensitivity further reinforce social cohesion while ensuring that tourism benefits are broadly shared within host communities.

Effective governance underpins both environmental and social outcomes by providing transparent, accountable, and coordinated frameworks for sustainable tourism. Policymakers and destination managers play a critical role in enforcing regulations, monitoring ESG performance, and balancing stakeholder interests. Multi-sector collaboration, the application of sustainability indicators, and adaptive management strategies enable destinations to anticipate and respond to environmental, social, and economic shocks.

Collectively, the ESG approach positions sustainable tourism as a synergistic model that aligns ecological integrity, social responsibility, and institutional effectiveness. By embedding ESG principles into core strategies, destinations can deliver unique, high-quality experiences, strengthen community livelihoods, and maintain global competitiveness. This integrative framework demonstrates that environmental stewardship, social equity, and sound governance are mutually reinforcing, offering a pathway for destinations to achieve enduring sustainability, resilient growth, and enhanced market differentiation.

The full paper is available here:

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397949208_Environmental_social_and_governance_ESG_factors_of_sustainable_tourism_development_The_way_forward_toward_destination_resilience_and_growth

Academia: https://www.academia.edu/145139975/Environmental_social_and_governance_ESG_factors_for_sustainable_tourism_development_The_way_forward_toward_destination_resilience_and_growth

Open Access Repository @University of Malta: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/141666

Leave a comment

Filed under carrying capacity, ESG, ESG Reporting, Marketing, Sustainability, sustainable tourism, tourism

Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies

This is an excerpt from one of my papers published through Wiley’s Business Strategy and the Environment.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216

This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.

Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.

The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.

Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.

Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.

In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.

In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.

This open access paper can also be accessed via ResearchGate: https://researchgate.net/publication/389267075_Cocreating_Value_Through_Open_Circular_Innovation_Strategies_A_Results-Driven_Work_Plan_and_Future_Research_Avenues#CSR#CircularEconomy#OpenInnovation

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, circular economy, innovation, Open Innovation

Restaurants communicating about sustainable practices: Guidelines for ESG reporting of food and beverage operations

The following content was drawn from one of my academic articles published through the International Journal of Hospitality Management. It has been adapted for a blog post.

Stakeholders including the regulatory authorities, among others, are increasingly encouraging hospitality businesses to publish information about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities. In many cases, they are already preparing ESG disclosures that shed light on their sustainable production and consumption policies and practices.

The environmental dimension

Generally, many hospitality chains are already monitoring the usage of their energy, water, raw materials and other resources, to minimize their running costs. For example, their restaurants could turn off certain appliances when not in use, invest in efficient lighting, appliances, cooking methods, as well as in water conservation practices (Madanaguli et al., 2022). In addition, they could generate their energy from renewable sources. Other aspects that are related to ESG’s ‘E’ dimension include environmental protection measures, sustainable sourcing of food items and their components (as the responsible procurement of items from local suppliers would reduce their environmental impact), as well as waste minimization efforts before, during and after food consumption, among others laudable practices (Elkhwesky, 2022). Hospitality businesses may avail themselves of food waste tracking systems to optimize their production and consumption activities, and to identify areas for improvement (Okumus et al., 2020). Such systems could help them reduce food scraps that will probably end up in landfills, if they recycle them into compost, that may be used for local farming or landscaping.

Very often, they gather and hold records about their recycling efforts as well as on their generated waste and emissions that can ultimately affect biodiversity and eco-systems including climate change, water and marine resources (Klaura et al., 2023). If this is the case, their captured data can be utilized to identify inefficiencies in their restaurants and to better understand how sustainable practices (like the ones mentioned in the above text) could reduce their costs as well as their overall financial performance. Moreover, it enables them to be in a good position to disclose information about their sustainability credentials.

Restauranteurs should prioritize purchasing from local sources to support the domestic economy and reduce transportation emissions. Food and beverage preparers could utilize seasonal menus to ensure that the dishes they serve and/or their ingredients are fresh and in-season. This reasoning is congruent with the farm-to-fork or farm-to-table initiatives adopted by various hotels and restaurants (Bux and Amicarelli, 2023). Frequently, hospitality businesses are opting for organic certified products and food components, to reduce the environmental impact associated with conventional agricultural practices. In a similar vein, many practitioners are investing in ant-based and insect-based items as more consumers are recognizing their nutrition benefits (Motoki et al., 2022). A number of colleagues are recognizing that such protein foods would result in lower externalities on the environment.

In this day and age, it is imperative that food and beverage service providers utilize sustainable food items in their menus. They are pressured by stakeholders to use eco-friendly packaging made from recycled, biodegradable, compostable, and/or reusable materials for food delivery and takeaway services as opposed to single-use plastic waste that pollute the natural environment. In sum, the hospitality businesses’ environmental responsibilities comprise sustainable sourcing of food items, sound inventory management, innovative food preparation practices, responsible consumption of food, and the use of eco-friendly packaging, to minimize their environmental footprint, and contribute to broader sustainability goals.

The social dimension

Most practitioners are taking into account non-financial information about hospitality businesses’ labor practices related to their own employees as well as to other workers employed by organizations in the value chain (including distributors, suppliers, subcontractors, et cetera) (Bullock et al., 2024). Report preparers may usually gather information about the conditions of employment of human resources, training and development records, health and safety measures, work life balance initiatives, living wage policies as well as on issues related to equal opportunities, diversity and inclusion in their workplace environment. A number of contributions reported that there is scope for hospitality owner-managers to delegate responsibilities to employees to enhance their morale and job satisfaction (Camilleri, 2022Gewinner, 2020). Frequently, they indicated that it is in their businesses’ interest to provide regular training and development opportunities on sustainable practices like food hygiene and safety, meal portion control as well as on food waste management, among others (Okumus, 2020). Notwithstanding, they are expected to communicate about their active engagement with suppliers. It is within their responsibility to ensure that they treat their marketplace stakeholders in a fair manner. They are expected to forge long lasting, mutual relationships with trustworthy suppliers and partners, who are recognized as responsible employers by stakeholders in society.

Hospitality businesses ought to be encouraged to source food items from local suppliers to promote community well-being. They should prioritize suppliers that are renowned for their dependability, responsible human resources management and environmental sustainability practices. Working closely with reliable suppliers could help improve the efficient sourcing of products and may result in timely delivery of fresh items (Vaughan, 2024). The practitioners’ engagement with suppliers would increase their chances of receiving food products and ingredients in an optimal condition, to reduce the likelihood of spoilage and of overstocking their inventories.

In addition, the social dimension may usually involve aspects related to the businesses’ engagement with customers as well as with societal stakeholders. Hospitality practitioners can promote their sustainable procurement and food production practices with customers. The food and beverage businesses’ communications and corporate disclosures about their sustainable credentials can influence their consumers’ behaviors. They could even induce their patrons to reduce food loss and waste in their households.

Report preparers could make reference to responsible marketing practices. They can raise awareness about their transparent pricing and on how they avoid deceptive or misleading tactics (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2023). They might communicate about their commitment to protect their consumers’ personal data. It this case, practitioners may reveal that they are using secure systems to prevent data breaches and unauthorized access to information. In addition, they could publicize the provision of accessible facilities for disabled patrons. Furthermore, they may shed light on their cultural sensitivity, as well as on their engagement with local communities through food donation programs to philanthropic and charitable institutions, among other socially responsible behaviors. Their proactive collaboration with local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders can help them achieve the sustainable development goal related to the responsible production and consumption (of food) to reduce the accumulation of waste originating from their operations (UNEP, n.d.). Conversely, they may decide to monetize their waste resources by utilize sharing economy platforms and functional mobile apps to sell surplus/excessive food to consumers, at reduced prices.

In a nutshell, the hospitality practitioners’ social responsibility aspects cover aspects related to their engagement with responsible suppliers, employees, customers and with the community at large. Restauranteurs are expected to communicate about their organizations’ responsible food production and consumption practices with a wide array of stakeholders. Their corporate reporting can add value to their business in terms of increased profits, as they benefit from an improved brand image and corporate reputation, among other positive outcomes.

The governance dimension

Listed hotel chains are frequently disseminating content about their corporate governance efforts, as they publish rules, regulations, collective agreements with trade unions and codes of conduct through offline and online channels (Yu et al., 2025). Such information would usually serve as formal guidelines for their organizations’ modus operandi. They also shed light on how the businesses are directed and controlled among internal and external stakeholders. Ultimately, it is in the organizations’ interest to build stakeholder relationships and to maintain open lines of communication with different parties, including with creditors, investors, shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, regulatory institutions and with local communities, among others.

There is scope for hospitality businesses to report about governance aspects including details about their organizations’ standards of integrity, accountability, board structure, executive compensation, and shareholder rights among other matters in their ESG reports. Such disclosures would probably make also reference to their businesses’ ethical dispositions as well as to risk management practices (e.g. compliance with health and safety, security issues, financial and operational aspects, reputation management, etc.) as these issues can help them build brand equity, instill trust in their activities and enhance their corporate reputation.

Specific disclosures about governance matters related to responsible food production and responsible consumption may include reference to accountable and transparent leadership that prioritizes the prevention of food loss and waste. The higher echelons of the organization ought to implement clear policies and procedures that ensure sustainable supply chain management. They are expected to monitor responsible food and beverage operations, at all times, from the procurement stage, through food preparation and consumption, in order to reduce food loss and waste. Food and beverage service providers ought to comply with relevant national legislation (where they operate their business) as well as with food safety and hygiene standards to protect their consumers’ health and wellbeing. They should handle, prepare and store their food and its components, in clean environments, to minimize spoilage, contamination and waste. This argumentation is congruent with substantive legislative instruments that are present in different jurisdictions, which require restaurants, among other entities, to implement sustainable measures that improve resource efficiency and prevent the generation of waste (EU, 2023aGovUK, 2024NEA, 2024).

A number of regulatory standards encourage practitioners to utilize food labeling that feature expiration dates (as well as nutrition information), to reduce food loss (Clodoveo et al., 2022). They may establish dedicated committees or sustainability champions to lead responsible food and beverage operations and initiatives that are intended to achieve continuous improvements in preventative and mitigative measures that reduce waste generated from hospitality businesses. Such practices may require ongoing training and development of employees on food and beverage practices like offering reduced portions and implementing efficient inventory management, to minimize food waste as much as possible.

Hospitality businesses may refer to the industry standards (that are duly mentioned in this paper), and they can even obtain certifications from some of them, including Green Key Certification, International Standards Organization’s ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems (EMS), among others, to improve their sustainability credentials for their food and beverage operations. These regulatory instruments can play a critical role in fostering ESG accounting, reporting, auditing and assurance. Fig. 1 clearly illustrates key elements that can be disclosed in ESG reports.

Fig. 1. The environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions (Camilleri & Carroll, 2024).

Regulatory instruments including standards and metrics for ESG reporting

Currently, several governments and intergovernmental institutions are encouraging big businesses to report information about their environmental, social and governance performance, in addition to their financial statements. Many of them are developing rules, regulations and guiding principles for corporations and listed enterprises. With regards to the materiality of their disclosures, report preparers need to take into account pertinent information (in terms of the reliability and completeness of the content they feature in their ESG reports) including on aspects related to critical issues related to sourcing of food and its ingredients, inventory management, preparation of meals (such as hygiene standards, use of local and organic ingredients), as well as other relevant details about measures that were undertaken to reduce food loss and waste. Hospitality businesses are expected to be transparent in their disclosures, to track progress vis-a-vis their efforts to reduce waste (year after year), and to identify areas that should be improved. Their ESG disclosures could also link food loss reduction initiatives with broader sustainability and financial performance metrics. This could enable them to evaluate their social, economic and environmental impacts of responsible food and beverage operations, and to develop comprehensive strategies and courses of action, for the future, to address their deficits.

Large entities, including hospitality chains as well as international food and beverage franchises, are usually expected by their stakeholders to prepare non-financial reports about their ESG performance in accordance with certifiable standards and/or eco-labels. They are bound to comply with relevant legislation about sustainability accounting, disclosures, audit and assurance practices applicable in specific jurisdictions where they operate their business,

For example, the European Union’s (EU’s) Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) Directive 2014/95/EU was one of the regulatory instruments that encouraged large undertakings to disclose non-financial information relating to ESG matters in their annual reports. Subsequently, the European Union built on the foundations of NFRD when it launched its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Arguably, the latter directive has improved the harmonization and standardization of ESG disclosures (across the EU), in terms of their transparency, consistency, comparability and reliability aspects. While the NFRD was primarily focused on large public-interest entities (PIEs), the CSRD has extended reporting obligations to more companies, including large private companies and subsidiaries of non-EU parent companies operating within the EU member states (EU, 2023b). Business practitioners, including hospitality firms are encouraged to utilize renowned international standards to prepare their ESG disclosures. They may refer to Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) and/or to the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s (SASB’s) standards, among others. Whilst the former was not specifically designed to disclose information about food and beverage operations, GRI’s principles can still be applied in the hospitality industry sector.

Organizations could utilize the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) guidelines to prepare non-financial reports that shed light on their ESG initiatives (Koseoglu et al., 2021Li et al., 2025). They could refer to GRI’s Standards that are intended to support organizations in various aspects of their operations. Several GRI standards and guidelines can be used to address and reduce food loss and food waste in hotels and restaurants. While GRI does not have a specific standard solely focused on food waste, various standards cover aspects related to sustainability, waste management, and social responsibility that can be applied in this context. GRI has formulated topic standards related to the management approach (GRI 103 2016), procurement practices (GRI 204 2016), waste (GRI 306 2020), supplier environmental assessment (GRI 308 2016), labor/management relations (GRI 402 2016), occupational health and safety (GRI 403 2018), training and education (GRI 404 2016), marketing and labeling (GRI 417 2016): among others, that could be used to assess the businesses’ credentials, with regards to their responsible production and sustainable consumption of food. 

Key takeaways

The underlying rationale behind this contribution is to promote responsible food and beverage operations within the hospitality industry. The sustainable sourcing of food products and their ingredients, their sound inventory management and control, the responsible preparation, production and consumption of food, can ultimately lead to a reduction in food loss and waste in hospitality settings including from hotels, restaurants and cafes, among others. The good practices that were mentioned in this article clearly address the environmental impact as well as social and economic dimensions, thereby promoting a holistic approach for the sustainability of food and beverage service providers.

This research raises awareness on the significance of non-financial accountability standards in the hospitality industry context. It makes reference to some of the most popular regulatory instruments and standards, including those set by the GRI, SASB and FLW among others, to promote ESG disclosures in corporate sustainability reports. Indeed, practitioners can utilize the standards mentioned in this paper, to account, measure and disclose their ESG performance. Arguably, such standards are instrumental to provide stakeholders with the necessary information to trace, evaluate and compare the sustainability efforts of hospitality firms.

This contribution builds on previous research that identified laudable food and beverage operations in the hospitality industry’s value chain; from the procurement of resources required for food production, leading to the point when surplus food and leftover items are reused, recycled or upcycled. It clarifies that excessive, edible and unspoilt food could be donated to food banks and/or to those in need, or even sold at discounted pricing through sharing economy platforms. Moreover, it also indicates that inedible foods can be converted into sustainable resources like garden compost or could be transformed into biogases, including methane (through anaerobic digester systems), that may be utilized for different purposes.

This research identifies and explains several ESG dimensions associated with food and beverage operations. It sheds light on several regulatory instruments comprising principles and standards, that may be adopted by practitioners to guide them in their ESG disclosures of their sustainable initiatives. Notwithstanding, this article puts forward a novel theoretical model that illustrates various responsible practices related to each of three (3) ESG dimensions. It clearly indicates that the hospitality businesses’ kitchen behaviors can be measured and accounted for in ESG reports, to provide stakeholders with a true and fair view of their sustainability credentials.

Future research directions

There is scope for further research focused on the main themes of this contribution. Academic colleagues may conduct primary research activities to explore the hospitality practitioners’ good practices, or lack thereof. They may reveal how they are planning, organizing, implementing and measuring the effectiveness of their responsible value chain activities. Prospective researchers may avail themselves of various methodologies and sampling frames, to explore this topic in depth and breadth. They could identify specific organizations including sustainability champions, that have a proven track record in: (i) reducing materials and resources, as well as in reusing and recycling surplus or leftover foods; (ii) utilizing sharing economy platforms and mobile apps to sell surplus foods at discounted prices; (iii) donating food to community projects; and/or iv) recycling inedible foods for compost purposes, among other options.

New submissions to journals could promote the positive multiplier effects of engaging in responsible food and beverage operations in terms of operational efficiencies and cost savings, improved corporate image and reputation, and the like. They could raise awareness on the business case for responsible food production and consumption behaviors. Alternatively, future researchers could prepare theoretical and/or discursive papers that clearly explain how, where, when and why hospitality firms are accounting their sustainable ESG activities. They may refer to specific standards and metrics presented in this article.

In addition, they may prepare comparative analyses of different ESG reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI and SASB among others). Their research might reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each framework and could possibly evaluate their standards and metrics in detail. Scholars could explore the enablers and barriers associated with ESG accounting, reporting, auditing, and assurance. They may focus on organizational aspects, financial and technological issues, regulatory interventions, and/or on cultural influences that could either support or hinder the widespread adoption of sustainable food and beverage initiatives in the hospitality sector.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M. A. (2025). Sustainability accounting and disclosures of responsible restaurant practices in environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports. International Journal of Hospitality Management126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104051

Leave a comment

Filed under ESG Reporting, food loss, food waste, Hospitality, hotels, Integrated Reporting, restaurants, Sustainable Consumption, sustainable production, sustainable supply chains

Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies

This blog post is an excerpt from my latest open-access article on the intersection of open innovation and the circular economy.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216

The stakeholders’ open innovation approaches are evidenced through collaborative practices across value chains, as practitioners are willing to share ideas and technologies with “new” partners to advance disruptive sustainable innovations (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Bocken and Ritala 2022; Brown et al. 2020). Inbound innovation practitioners can benefit from external stakeholders’ knowledge and expertise to implement product-life extension strategies and resource recovery methods and to cocreate circular economy ecosystems including industrial symbiosis, reverse logistics, product-service systems/product-as-a-service, sharing economy, and leasing models (Köhler et al. 2022; Lisi et al. 2024).

Resource Recovery and Industrial Symbiosis

Open innovation practitioners would benefit from external competences, capabilities, and technologies from stakeholders who are not in the company’s books. Their ongoing engagement and collaboration with them may help them improve their operations as they acquire resources such as human capital, materials, energy, water, and by-products, among others. Resource sharing can help the businesses to optimize manufacturing processes, to minimize waste, and to create a more sustainable and efficient industrial ecosystem (Johnstone 2024).

Practitioners may even benefit from other businesses’ externalities including by-products or unwanted waste materials and could utilize them as resources. They can leverage open innovation approaches to address resource scarcity (and resource depletion) by finding new ways to repurpose waste. They may do so by reducing material inputs and by recycling valuable resources (Berkemeier et al. 2024). For example, the heat generated from a power plant could be used to heat buildings or greenhouses located in nearby communities. Industries situated close to each other may share utilities including energy and water supply infrastructure or services, such as transportation, water treatment facilities, or waste management services. Their resource recovery can result in cost saving and operational efficiencies (Johnstone 2024).

Cross-industry collaboration and industrial symbiosis can help companies to discover new uses of waste streams to develop circular supply chains. There is scope for business leaders to engage with external stakeholders, to exchange or sell discarded resources, and by-products that would otherwise end up as waste. Arguably, one company’s waste, materials and by-products can serve as resources for others. The sharing of resources among organizations can significantly enhance the practitioners’ capabilities, as partners can work in tandem on sustainability initiatives and innovation projects to achieve circular economy outcomes. The stakeholders’ pooling of surplus resources can lower the manufacturing costs for collaborating partners, as they allow them to access tools and materials at lower market prices.

The case of Kalundborg, Denmark, typifies such open innovation approaches (CEStakeholderEU n.d.; Valenzuela-Venegas et al. 2016). A power plant (located at Asnæs), a Novo Nordisk (a pharmaceutical company), and an oil refinery (belonging to Equinor, formerly known as Statoil), among other organizations, are working together in industrial symbiosis. In sum, these entities have created a network that optimizes materials from waste or by-products and are turning them into valuable resources. Their aim is to lower their costs while minimizing their environmental impact.

Kalundborg started as an informal exchange of waste materials between industries that are situated in close proximity to one another. For example, the excess heat from the power plant is used by Novo Nordisk for production processes, and to heat local homes. In addition, surplus water from the oil refinery is used by a local fish farm. Over the years, this collaboration has grown into a large-scale, highly efficient system, where waste from one process becomes a resource for another. Such symbiosis has significantly reduced waste, emissions, and water consumption, thereby contributing to environmental and economic sustainability.

Similarly, the municipality of Amsterdam is collaborating with a nonprofit organization, entitled, “Circle Economy.” Together, they have developed a strategic plan whose objectives are to turn Amsterdam into a fully circular city by 2050 (Calisto Friant et al. 2021; CEStakeholderEU 2016; Government.nl 2016). This initiative involves the transformation of various sectors, such as construction, energy, and waste management, among others, to adapt the city to operate closed-loop systems. Collaborative projects comprise the reutilization of materials from demolished buildings to reduce waste generated from the construction industry, the promotion of business models like “product as a service” that encourage the leasing of assets rather than owning them, the development of shared mobility solutions, and the reduction of food waste, among others (Camilleri 2021; Camilleri 2025). These circular economy practices can contribute to reducing resource utilization, consumption, and depletion of materials.

Resource Recovery, Reverse Logistics, and Product-Life Extension Strategies

Practitioners can collaborate with external partners to extend the life of certain products and/or of their components. They can help each other to recover materials from used and unwanted items, including from waste, in order to reuse, refurbish, recycle, and remanufacture resources to promote sustainable supply chains (Hadi 2024). The resource recovery procedures focus on reclaiming discarded products and their component materials to reuse them as inputs for new production processes (Brown et al. 2020). Similarly, reverse logistics approaches are intended to support the collection and transportation of waste items, like plastics, metal, and electronics, among others (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For example, returned electronics can be refurbished, remanufactured for further use, and resold. Such operational processes facilitate the flow of products in the opposite direction of traditional supply chains, as they involve returning, repairing, restoring, and recycling materials for a specific manufacturer, or for designated facilities.

The utilized materials that could have finished in a landfill can be repurposed as plausible resources in industrial production (Lisi et al. 2024). Likewise, the products collected through reverse logistics can also be refurbished or remanufactured. This form of resource recovery extends the life of products and reduces the need for new raw materials (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). There are instances where materials like organic waste, used oils, or even heat could be captured and utilized in waste-to-energy processes, and for resource extraction purposes, instead of being disposed of, in the natural environment (Ahmad et al. 2024; Liu et al. 2023). Therefore, external stakeholders could help sustainability champions in the recovery of resources, or to increase product longevity, and the lifecycles of extant products and/or of their component materials, while reducing material consumption (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). As a result, the responsible manufacturers would be in a position to develop sustainable products that are durable, repairable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable.

For example, retail brands, including H&M, among others have teamed up with Ellen MacArthur Foundation as well as with philanthropists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and disruptive innovators, to design a “new textiles economy” known as Circular Fibres Initiative (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021a; UNEP 2023). One of its objectives is to develop materials including sustainable fibers in order to improve their end-of-life processing. As a result, clothing and apparel materials could last longer, be worn multiple times, and may be easily rented, resold, or recycled. This collaboration set the foundation for H&M’s efforts to collect and recycle used clothing through their in-store garment collection programs. Similarly, Nike has launched a Circular Innovation Challenge (Di Summa 2023). Like H&M, it invited innovators from around the world to propose ideas for new sustainability materials, design processes, and end-of-life solutions for shoes, to transform the future of footwear. Evidently, Nike’s goal was to reduce waste by creating closed-loop products that are recycled or reused at the end of their lifecycle. One of the major outcomes of their challenge was the development of shoes made from recycled materials, including from factory waste and recycled plastics.

Like Nike, Adidas partnered with Parley for the Oceans, an environmental organization, as well as with material innovators and recycling experts, to address a growing consumer demand for eco-friendly and sustainable footwear, without compromising on performance or quality (Murfree and Police 2022). This collaboration is aimed at developing shoes made from recycled ocean plastics, thereby contributing to a circular product lifecycle. As a result, the company’s Parley line of shoes, which was/is made from ocean plastics, has quickly become a global success, with millions of pairs sold since its launch. Other apparel brands, including Patagonia, REI, and Eileen Fisher, have joined forces with Yerdle, a technology company that provides logistics capabilities to buy back and resell their used items (Agrawal et al. 2019; Forbes 2019). By taking advantage of resale, brands take control of the growing secondary retail market. Such sustainable recovery practices provide them with an opportunity to extend the life of their existing products. Hence, they are in a position to reduce the generation of unwanted materials that end up in landfills. At the same time, they promote responsible consumption behaviors among consumers, and increase their profits, by selling refurbished items.

Alternatively, for-profit businesses may collaborate with other organizations, including with competitors, to reduce waste related to single-use packaging, that could inevitably end up in landfills, and/or in our oceans. TerraCycle, a United States–based company specializing in recycling hard-to-recycle materials, is a case in point, of such organizations, as its “Loop” platform aims to reduce single-use packaging, by offering consumers reusable, refillable containers for everyday products (Conick 2019; WEF 2023). Launched in 2019, Loop represents a major step toward implementing circular economy principles. It is intended to eliminate waste from disposable packaging through a “return and reuse” system. For the record, Terracycle entered into a partnership with multinational brands like Nestlé, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble, among other retailers Consumers can purchase these brands’ products through Loop’s platform, and when finished, they can return their empty packages for cleaning and reuse. The partnerships among these big brands has dramatically reduced the need for single-use plastic packaging. As a result, a number of companies have been able to extend the lifecycle of their packaging materials, while offering consumers a more sustainable alternative to traditional packaging. The Loop model has expanded to major retailers like Carrefour in Europe and Walgreens in the United States, among others, demonstrating that open innovation efforts across different sectors can scale circular practices globally (WEF 2025).

For instance, there is scope for businesses to collaborate with research institutions as well as with NGOs, to develop open innovation solutions that are intended to reduce waste and pollution that are damaging the natural environment and the biosphere (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For instance, Interface (a flooring company) and the Zoological Society of London have launched the Net-Works Program (Luqmani et al. 2017; ZSL 2025). Essentially, this program involves the utilization of discarded fishing nets and their recycling into nylon yarn, to develop sustainable carpets. Net-Works is designed to tackle the growing environmental problem of discarded fishing nets in some of the globe’s poorest coastal communities, including those in the Philippines and Cameroon, among others. This program is aimed at reducing pollution in the oceans, as plastic materials can be ingested by marine animals and/or destroy their habitat. It raises awareness on the use of dangerous resources that are polluting the world’s natural environment. Moreover, it offers economic opportunities for the governments of developing countries, as they enable them to provide new sources of income for local communities. Through such sustainable initiatives, Interface has integrated a circular economy approach into its supply chain. It created a model that combines environmental conservation with social impact.

In a similar vein, Unilever, one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies, is collaborating with external innovators, research institutions and startups to address the challenge of plastic waste. In short, this multinational business indicated that it is seeking external ideas to reduce plastic waste, to use better plastic that is designed to be recycled, and/or to avoid using plastic by switching to alternative materials (Arijeniwa et al. 2024; Phelan et al. 2022). Unilever’s engagement with external partners has helped the organization to utilize responsible material designs, sustainable packaging, and recycling technologies that align with circular economy principles. For example, one of the key success factors of Unilever’s open innovation initiative was the development of a fully recyclable plastic detergent bottle that is made from 100% recycled materials. Additionally, this multinational organization continuously raises awareness about its reuse and refill stations for personal care products, in various supermarkets, in different contexts around the globe, thereby reducing the need for single-use packaging. The diverse ideas sourced through external partners are significantly contributing to minimizing the use of virgin plastics by its distributors in the value chains, as well as by their consumers.

Likewise, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) collaborates with external scientists, startups, research institutions, and industry partners in its Connect + Develop program that is intended to develop sustainable products and solutions (Huston and Sakkab 2006). This laudable program seeks external ideas related to sustainable packaging and product designs that are congruent with the company’s circular economy goals. Since its inception, P&G has developed new packaging materials that are easier to recycle, such as its clear, recyclable plastic for shampoo bottles. The company has also introduced concentrated product formulations that reduce packaging waste and shipping emissions. P&G’s open innovation model allowed the company to access diverse ideas and to rapidly implement responsible and sustainable solutions that align with its circular economy vision.

Another good example of circular economy practices is clearly illustrated when organizations leverage open innovation approaches to adopt waste-to-resource technologies to accelerate their transition to a zero-waste economy. A number of manufacturing firms including automotive businesses are already recovering materials and reutilizing resources from used vehicles at their end-of-life. Renault, one of Europe’s largest car makers, has teamed up with Veolia, a global environmental services company and Solvay, a global chemical and advanced materials company, to develop closed-loop recycled resources for automotive parts (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021b; Muller et al. 2021). These companies collaborate to utilize end-of-life vehicles to recover metals, plastics and other materials from them, as they are no longer in use. This allows Renault to operate its business sustainably, as the French car maker incorporates recycled materials in its new automobiles. The automotive company’s manufacturing plant in Flins, France, became a leading facility in Europe for vehicle disassembly and material recovery, thereby contributing to the circular economy agenda.

Product-Service Systems/Product-as-a-Service

Other manufacturing practitioners operating in different industries are adopting product-service systems that are also known as product-as-a-service business models. Such circular economy approaches involve companies offering products in combination with services (Sgambaro et al. 2024). The businesses offering product-service systems emphasize about the value derived from accessing and utilizing their maintained products rather than owning them. This economic model clearly specifies that customers do not have to purchase the products they use. Hence, consumers would benefit from utilizing the products and from its performance. Frequently, the practitioners operating business models that are very similar to leasing systems would provide additional services including maintenance, upgrades, and training, among others, along with their products, to add value to customers. As the service providers would usually retain the ownership of their products, it is in their interest to design them as efficient as possible, as they are meant to serve their purpose for a long time, without the need for regular maintenance (Chen 2018). Preferably, they should be designed in a very sustainable manner. Their components ought to be easily recyclable, and preferably modular and lightweight, to increase their likelihood of offering extended product lifespans.

A case in point is Signify (that was formerly known as Philips Lighting). Currently, the Dutch multinational conglomerate is collaborating with various municipalities and businesses (Bocken 2021; Camilleri 2019). The company is adopting a product-service system strategy, as it provides lighting systems as a service to its clients including to municipalities and to businesses, rather than merely selling light bulbs. This enables Signify to retain ownership of its equipment, to maintain its infrastructure as well as to upgrade and recycle its products at their end-of-life. In plain words, its customers will be only expected to pay for the light they use.

Arguably, this business model is clearly promoting the circular economy. It encourages the manufacturers and/or service providers to use efficient materials, as well as to increase the recycling of resources and materials. Hence, they will be in a better position to reduce their waste.

Sharing Economies and Leasing Systems

There are other sustainable business models that are related to product-service systems (Sergianni et al. 2024). In this case, their payment structure is typically based on subscription models, leases, and/or may involve pay-per-use arrangements. Customers including individuals and organizations, such as institutions, businesses, and NGOs, will be expected to pay for the duration of the service(s) they receive, or to pay the amount of the products they consume. Like the product-service systems (that were mentioned in the previous section), such circular economy models are shifting the focus from ownership to access (Eisenreich et al. 2021).

Such sustainable propositions can extend product lifecycles, reduce the generation of waste, and encourage resource-efficient practices. The proprietors who lease their assets are responsible for their ongoing maintenance and repairs. Hence, it is in their interest to design and develop high-quality, durable items and components that are easy to replace, refurbish, recycle, and repair. If they do so, they would require fewer raw materials, minimize their reliance on new resources, and also decrease their waste output.

The partnership between FROG Bikes (a manufacturer of children’s bikes) and Bike Club (a subscription service for bikes) represents a good example of open innovation practices, as the two businesses joined forces to lease bikes for families, and to exchange bikes as children outgrow them (Eurofound 2018). Essentially, Frog Bikes maintains, refurbishes, and reuses its bikes with new customers, once existing consumers need to upgrade to bigger ones. They strive in their endeavors to maximize the use of their resources. In reality, such a sharing economy initiative has extended the life of the bikes and has significantly reduced the likelihood that they end up in landfills when kids outgrow them. Indeed, the Bike Club’s leasing model is promoting a circular approach by prioritizing maintenance, reuse, and resource efficiency, over ownership and disposal.

Similarly, Floow2, a Dutch business-to-business sharing platform, collaborates with hospitals, construction companies, and other firms to share underutilized equipment, vehicles, and office spaces (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021c). This sharing economy company invites businesses from various industry sectors, including healthcare and construction, among others, to list their idle assets (that can be rented). Floow2 facilitates the sharing economy of high-cost resources such as medical equipment and/or construction tools. Its platform enables its customers (including hospitality, clinics, healthcare centers, and construction companies, among others) to optimize their operations, by utilizing leased technologies and systems, without the need to purchase them. This sharing economy approach reduces unnecessary investments in new equipment, minimizes waste, and improves resource efficiencies across multiple sectors.

Discussion

This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.

Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.

The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.

Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.

Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.

In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.

In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.

Read further: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.4216 (the full references are available here).

This research is also available via ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Social Science Research Network and through University of Malta’s Open Access Repository.

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, circular economy, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Open Innovation

Leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies for sustainable value chains and responsible operations management

Featuring a few snippets from one of my latest co-authored papers on the use of digital technologies for lean and sustainable value chains. A few sections have been adapted to be presented as a blog post.

Suggested citation: Strazzullo, S., Cricelli, L., Troise, C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2024). Leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies for sustainable value chains: Raising awareness on digital transformation and responsible operations management, Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3211

Abstract

Practitioners, policy makers as well as scholars are increasingly focusing their attention on the promotion of sustainable practices that reduce the businesses’ impacts on the environment. In many cases, they are well aware that manufacturers and their suppliers are resorting to lean management processes and Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies such as big data, internet of things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI), among others, to implement sustainable production models in their operational processes. This research utilizes an inductive approach to better understand how I4.0 technologies could result in increased organizational performance in terms of resource efficiencies, quality assurance as well as in environmentally sustainable outcomes, in the context of the automotive industry. The findings shed light on the relationship between I4.0 technologies, sustainable and lean practices of automakers of combustion engines, hybrid models and/or electric vehicles (EVs). In conclusion, this contribution puts forward an original conceptual framework that clearly explains how practitioners can avail themselves of disruptive technologies to foster continuous improvements in their value chain.

Keywords: Industry 4.0, digital transformation, lean management, sustainable supply chain, responsible operations management, resource efficiencies.

Introduction

The manufacturing industries are characterized by their increased emphasis on the development of sustainable practices that are facilitated by digital technologies. Companies are under pressure from a wide range of stakeholders, including by regulatory institutions and by individual customers, among others (Wellbrock et al., 2020). In parallel, in recent years, most businesses have gradually introduced Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies in their manufacturing processes, as they shifted to smart factory models (Atif, 2023; Choi et al., 2022; Varriale et al., 2024). However, they cannot disregard their corporate responsibilities on economic, environmental and social aspects (Sunar & Swaminathan, 2022). Many researchers contend that sustainability behaviors ought to be integrated with I4.0 processes (Ghobakhloo, 2020), in order to enhance the effectiveness, efficiencies and economies of their Supply Chains (SC) (Núñez-Merino et al., 2020). To be competitive in this context, SCs are implementing lean management models to improve their operations.

The sustainability of SC is related to the notion of Lean Supply Chain Management (LSCM) that refers to the elimination of non-value-added activities in order to enhance the manufacturing firms’ performance (Centobelli et al., 2022; Núñez-Merino et al., 2020). The proponents of LSCM suggest that the generation of waste can be reduced through responsible management strategies (Deshpande & Swaminathan, 2020). Arguably, the minimization of externalities can ultimately affect all stakeholders of SCs, ranging from the business itself, its suppliers as well as its consumers (Khorasani et al., 2020). Notwithstanding, the stakeholders’ pressures on organizations has led them to change their operational approaches to comply with new environmental regulations and to respond to the growing demands of customers for sustainable products and services (Adomako et al., 2022; Camilleri et al., 2023).

As a result, many commentators are also raising awareness on the Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) concept (Sonar et al., 2022; Yadav et al., 2020). Very often, they claim that SSCM is an important organizational model that can increase corporate profits and boost market shares. The SSCM proposition is based on the reduction of risks from unwanted environmental impacts, thereby improving the overall efficiency of SCs (Negri et al., 2021). Previous contributions have clearly demonstrated how LSCM and SSCM are closely related to one another (Azevedo et al., 2017). More recent studies have deepened the link between the lean management paradigm and I4.0 (Oliveira-Dias et al., 2022; Tissir et al., 2022). The  integration of these two concepts has led to the formulation of new definitions such as “Lean 4.0” and “Digital Lean Manufacturing”, among others.

Given the increased complexity of operations, many researchers debate that the introduction of lean practices may not be enough to address extant competitive pressures. Although lean management can improve the operational efficiencies of SCs and may add value to their organization, there is still scope for practitioners to continue ameliorating their extant processes. Lean initiatives are reaching a point where they are becoming common practice in different contexts. Many manufacturers are adopting them to reduce their costs. However, the success of lean production practices relies on the management’s strategic decisions and on operational changes they are willing to undertake. Arguably, both SSCM and LSCM are aimed at fostering more flexible, fast, customized, and transparent operations management in manufacturing and distribution systems. Some studies have already clarified how digital technologies can help practitioners to improve achieve these objectives (Ghobakhloo, 2020; Varriale et al., 2024).

Several academic studies have not considered the fact that SCs are becoming more technologically savvy. As technologies continue to evolve, they are transforming the modus operandi of many businesses. Today’s organizational processes are increasingly utilizing different types of innovative solutions. Undoubtedly, manufacturers ought to keep up with the latest advances in technology and with the changing market conditions. Besides, a number of firms are opting to outsource their manufacturing processes to low-cost developing countries. In this light, this research builds on theoretical underpinnings focused on the link between SSCM and LSCM. However, it differentiates itself from previous contributions, as it clarifies how these two paradigms can be connected to I4.0.

Notwithstanding, for the time being, there is still a lack of agreement among academia, policy makers and expert practitioners about what constitutes lean, sustainable systems in today’s manufacturing landscape. Although there a number of stakeholders who are already engaging in LSCM and SSCM practices to meet the new challenges and opportunities presented by I4.0 and the digital age, others are still lagging behind, or are considering SSCM and LSCM and digital technologies as silos, as they see no link between these approaches (Narkhede et al., 2024).

For example, at the time of writing, several automotive manufacturers claim that they are integrating lean and sustainable practices. Very often, they indicate that they utilize I4.0’s disruptive technologies. Yet, a number of academic commentators argue that some of these practitioners unsustainable manufacturing processes and waste management behaviors are contributing to the negative impacts to the degradation of the natural environment, thereby accelerating climate change (Liu & Kong, 2021; Sonar et al., 2022).

Lately, academic colleagues have sought to highlight the synergies between I4.0 technologies, lean management principles and sustainable practices (Centobelli et al., 2022; Cerchione, 2024). The majority of contributions provide a conceptual study of the potential relationship between I4.0, sustainable and lean SCs. However, to date, limited research have integrated lean SC, SSC and I4.0 technologies. This paper represents one of the first attempts to investigate the connection between SSCM, LSCM and I4.0 paradigms, in depth and breadth, in the context of the automotive industry. For the time being, there is still limited research that raises awareness on sustainable and lean supply chain systems that are benefiting from disruptive technologies (Cerchione, 2024; Guo et al., 2022). Hence, this contribution addresses this knowledge gap. Specifically, it seeks to explore these research questions (RQs):

RQ1: Which I4.0 technologies and to what extent are they supporting the manufacturing businesses in their adoption of sustainable and lean management practices?

RQ2: How is the automotive industry’s SC benefiting from the utilization of disruptive technologies, as well as from sustainable and lean management practices?

The underlying goal of this contribution is to raise awareness on how manufacturing businesses including automotive corporations utilize I4.0 technologies, implement lean management as well as sustainable practices to improve their SCs performance. An inductive approach is utilized to address the above RQs. Rich qualitative data were captured through semi-structured interviews with expert practitioners who hold relevant experience in planning, organizing, leading and controlling responsible operations management initiatives in the automotive industry, and who are already deploying a wide array of I4.0 technologies in their manufacturing processes.

The researchers adopt a hermeneutic approach to outline the thematic analysis (TA) of their interpretative findings. They identify the main intersections between SSCM, LSCM and I4.0 paradigms. Moreover, they provide a conceptual framework that clearly explicates how practitioners can avail themselves of I4.0 technologies to advance sustainable and lean management practices in different phases of the supply chain, including in the sourcing of materials, inventory control, manufacturing processes, logistics/distribution of products, as well as in their after sales services.

Literature review

Companies can create value when they have the competences, capabilities and resources to create products. (Khan et al., 2016). They ought to be flexible and responsive to their customers’ needs, particularly in a competitive environment, like the automotive industry. Indeed, customers tend to evaluate the companies based on the products they sell  and on their unique selling propositions  (Kumar Singh & Modgil, 2020). The lean management principles can therefore help manufacturers to implement the philosophy of continuous improvements in their operational performance (Marodin et al. 2016), in order to add value to their customers, and to increase the likelihood of repeat business (Liker, 2004; Papadopoulou & Özbayrak, 2005).

Such ongoing improvements are not only relevant during production (e.g. within the automotive workshops) but may also be implemented throughout the entire SC, including in customer-facing environments (Cagliano et al., 2006). There are a number of lean management approaches that can be taken on board by different manufacturers including by automakers. Table 1 provides a list of lean practices (that could also be adopted within the automotive industry):

Table 1. A non-exhaustive list of lean management terms

Lean PracticesDefinitionsReferences
AndonAndon is a quality control signaling system that provides notifications on issues relating to the maintenance of certain operational processes. An alert can be activated automatically through automated systems or manually by employees. As a result, Andon systems can pause production so that operational issues can be rectified.(Saurin et al., 2011)
HeijunkaHeijunka is intended to improve operational flows by reducing the unevenness in production processes and by minimizing the chance of overburden. It can used to process orders according to fluctuations in demand, and to respond to changes by levelling production by volume or by type, thereby utilizing existing capacity in the best possible way.(Nordin et al., 2010)
JidokaJidoke refers to automated systems that are monitored and supervised by humans. It is used to improve the product quality and to prevent any malfunctions during manufacturing processes.(Liker & Morgan, 2006)
Just in time (JIT)A JIT system is an inventory management strategy that is based on forecasted demand. It aligns purchasing and procurement tasks with production schedules. Companies employ this lean strategy to increase their efficiency by reducing overproduction, unnecessary waiting times, excessive inventory, product defects and unwanted waste. JIT is evidenced when materials and goods are ordered, only when they are required.(Mayr et al., 2018; Sanders et al., 2016)  
KaizenKaizen is a lean production management approach that promotes continuous improvements in manufacturing processes on a day-by-day basis. This notion is based on the idea that ongoing positive changes will gradually result in significant improvements in the long run. Organizations adopting Kaizen will motivate their employees to consistently boost their productivity, reduce waste, lower defects and to be accountable in their jobs.(Valamede & Akkari, 2020)
KanbanKanban involves a scheduling system that can improve operational efficiencies in lean manufacturing environments. One of its main advantages is to limit the buildup of excess materials and resources at any point in time during operational processes. Practitioners ought to ensure that they are maintaining a predefined inventory level for production purposes.(Valamede & Akkari, 2020)
Pull Production (PP)PP is a lean management methodology that is intended to control production processes in order to limit overproduction, reduce surpluses and to minimize warehouse costs. PP can be used to determine the optimal quantity that should be produced. Production occurs when and where it is needed, according to demand.(Sanders et al., 2017b)
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)TPM is a holistic maintenance approach that is used to improve operational efficiency and product quality, by eliminating failures and defects. Moreover, it promotes a safe working environment to prevent accidents from happening. It also aims to motivate employees to improve their job satisfaction, productivity and organizational performance(Mayr et al., 2018; Valamede & Akkari 2020)
Value Stream Mapping (VSM)VSM (is also known as material- and information-flow mapping) is a lean management method that involves the analysis of extant operations to better plan operational procedures, for the future. It is a visual tool that describes (in detail) all critical steps in specific manufacturing processes.(De Raedemaecker et al., 2017; Wagner et al., 2017)

Table 2 describes some of the most prevalent sustainability practices that are being employed in the automotive industry, as well as in other manufacturing contexts.

Table 2 Sustainable practices adopted by manufacturing businesses

Sustainable PracticesDefinitionsReferences
Sustainable Total Quality Management (STQM)STQM is a management approach that relies on the participation of all members of staff to create long-term value to their organization and to society at large, by considering the triple bottom line objectives in terms of profit, people and planet.(Yadav et al., 2020)  
Local sourcingLocal sourcing is related to the procurement of products, resources or materials from producers and suppliers located in close proximity to the manufacturing facility, rather than acquiring them from international sources. This approach encourages companies to purchase their requirements from local suppliers to reduce costs and to minimize their impact on the environment.(Zailani et al., 2015)  
Sustainable cooperation with customers“Sustainable cooperation with customers” involves the businesses’ engagement activities with customers. Organizations can increase their customers’ awareness about social responsible issues and environmentally sustainable initiatives.(Eltayeb et al., 2011; Purba Rao, 2018)  
Sustainable employee engagement“Sustainable employee engagement” is associated with the organizations’ relationship with its employees. Employers are expected to treat their employees well with dignity and respect. It is in their interest to foster an organizational climate that rewards their hard in a commensurate manner.(Robinson et al., 2003)
Supplier certification International Standards Organization’s (ISO’s) Environmental Management Standard (ISO14001)ISO14001 is one of the most widely used environmental management standard. It encourages manufacturing practitioners to continuously improve their operations to minimize their impact on the environment. It clearly recommends that environmental management issues ought to be embedded within the organizations’ strategic planning processes and that business leaders should pledge their commitment to implement sustainable initiatives that are aimed to protect the environment and to mitigate climate change.  (Camilleri, 2022; Potoski & Prakash 2005)  
Waste and emissions reductionsThe “waste and emissions reductions” constitute one of the most important aspects of sustainable production. Manufacturing businesses ought to reduce the generation of externalities including the accumulation of waste and emissions resulting from their operations. They are expected to strictly comply with the relevant legislation to protect the environment and to prevent any detrimental effects from waste and emissions on eco systems.(Vijayvargy & Agarwal, 2014)

Table 3 sheds light on some of I4.0 technologies that are being employed within the automotive industry.

Table 3. I4.0 technologies that are utilized in the automotive industry

I4.0 TechnologiesDefinitionsReferences
Three-Dimensional (3D) printing3D printing is based on additive technology that can create solid objects from computer-aided design (CAD) software, or via 3D models.(Kamble et al. 2018)  
Artificial Intelligence (AI)AI is concerned with computers and machines that are capable of mimicking human reasoning, human learning and even human behaviors. Basically, it involves a set of machine learning and deep learning technologies that can be used to analyze, predict and forecast data, to categorize objects, to process natural language, to make recommendations, and to retrieve intelligent data retrieval.(Chae and Goh 2020; Ghobakhloo 2020)  
Augmented Reality (AR)AR enables its users to view virtual content that comprises multiple sensory modalities that may include visual, vocal, haptic, olfactory, and other somatosensory stimuli in a real-world environment.(Mayr et al., 2018; Rüßmann et al., 2015)
Big Data (BIG DATA)BIG DATA refers to data sets that are too large or complex to be dealt with via conventional data processing software. Supposedly, big data software can rapidly handle large volumes as well as a variety of information.(Swaminathan, 2018; Vaidya et al., 2018)
BlockchainA blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that allows its users to track and store records (blocks). The blocks hold transactional data that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes that are timestamped. Each block is linked to the other.(Pun et al., 2021)
Cloud computingCloud computing refers to on-demand computer resources that can be utilized to share and store data in an agile and flexible manner, beyond company boundaries, through multiple locations.(Tao & Qi 2019; Vaidya et al. 2018)
Cyber Physical Systems (CPSs)  CPSs are related to physical and software systems that are deeply intertwined to operate spatial and temporal scales. They are controlled and/or monitored by algorithms to interact with each other in ways that change with context. They exhibit multiple and distinct behavioral modalities.(Adamides & Karacapilidis, 2020; Kamble et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016)  
Internet of Things (IoT)IoT are physical objects (or groups of objects) with sensors that can enable them to process and exchange data with other devices and systems via the Internet or other communications networks.(He & Xu, 2014)  
Virtual simulation (VS)VS refers to computational system-based modeling that relies on real-time data to mirror the physical world. Virtual models can include machines, products, and humans. A simulation provides a preliminary analysis of different processes (and phases) that make up the operational processes, thereby presenting performance estimates for production management.(Li et al., 2018)

Discussion

This research sought to examine the role of I4.0 technologies in supporting sustainable and lean initiatives in SCs. To this end, an inductive study involving a thematic analysis was conducted to answer the underlying RQs. Interestingly, the findings clearly indicate that utilization of I4.0 technologies are opening up new opportunities in the automotive industry. They confirm that carmakers are changing their modus operandi in terms of their procurement of resources, production practices, and of how they are servicing their customers. It shows that a myriad of digital technologies (including big data, simulation and IoT, among others) are facilitating the implementation of lean programs, thereby improving productivity outcomes, whilst decreasing operational costs.

Moreover, it reported that certain disruptive technologies can be utilized to create value to environmental sustainability in terms of waste minimization practices through recycling procedures, reductions in CO2 emissions, lower energy consumption levels, et cetera, thereby diminishing the businesses’ impact on the natural environments. This research noted that the automakers’ implementation of sustainable practices is not as conspicuous as that of their lean management practices, in the academic literature, even though most of them are increasingly producing sustainable vehicles including hybrids and EVs.

In addition, the findings indicate that there is still scope for manufacturing firms to avail themselves of I4.0 systems to consistently improve their operations in SCs. The results reported that big data can be used to pursue continuous improvements and Kaizen approaches to improve efficiencies, lower costs and reduce waste. They revealed that practitioners are collaborating with marketplace stakeholders and utilizing JIT systems to responsibly source materials and resources when they are required. Moreover, they found that organizations are availing themselves of Andon and Jidoka automated systems to monitor and control different manufacturing processes in the supply chain, to ensure the smooth running of operations.

Theoretical implications

This contribution convergences Industry 4.0 and responsible supply chain practices with lean management approaches. It raises awareness on how manufacturers including those operating in the automotive industry, can improve their quality standards through specific tools (e.g. Andon and Jidoka) and techniques (like Kaizen and Kanban, among others), to enhance their efficiencies, reduce costs and eliminate non-value-added activities. It explains that there is scope for sustainable businesses to invest in disruptive technologies and long-term cultural change to achieve continuous improvements in their supply chains. It clarifies that the intersection of LSCM, SSCM and I4.0 can potentially revolutionize operations management, as practitioners can benefit from digital technologies like real-time data, cloud, AI, CPS, blockchain technologies to consistently ameliorate their production systems in a sustainable manner.

Arguably, businesses can avail themselves of big data analytics, simulations and digital twins, to anticipate demand fluctuations, optimize inventory levels, reduce lead times. These data-driven innovations enable them to proactively respond to changing market conditions and disruptions, identify potential disruptions early, and to mitigate risks. In addition, they could invest in Blockchain digital ledger technologies to trace materials, components and products to ensure responsible sourcing of goods, increase the sustainability of their operations and reduce the businesses’ environmental impact.  

Alternatively, they can utilize CPS systems to automate tasks, improve quality control and to reduce errors from their production processes. These approaches would probably lead to better resource utilization, waste management and circular economy approaches like recyclability, reusability and repairability of assets to extend their lifecycles. Hence, practitioners can align I4.0 paradigm with the lean principles of pull production and just-in-time systems as well as with sustainable supply chain management. For the time being, few researchers have delved into these promising areas of study. Even fewer contributions have investigated these issues in the automotive industry context. This contribution addresses these knowledge gaps in academia. It advances a comprehensive theoretical framework that clearly sheds light on the link between I4.0, strategic lean management approaches and sustainability outcomes including improved resource efficiencies and reduced externalities, among others.

Managerial implications

Regarding the implications for practitioners, this contribution raises awareness on the importance of using technologies to improve the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of SCs, in a sustainable manner. The interpretative findings of this research identified a set of I4.0 technologies and practices that can improve the performance of SCs in the automotive industry. Among the various I4.0 technologies, the informants identified: IoT, simulation, cloud, and big data as some of the most effective tools to enhance the organizational performance of manufacturing businesses. Generally, they indicated that their companies were relying on insights from big data to continuously improve their operations. Evidently, they captured data as they tracked different processes of their operations, in real time. Subsequently, the gathered data is analyzed to discover any areas for improvement. For example, big data could reveal that modifications may be required if certain processes and procedures are not adding value to the company, or if they are translating to operational inefficiencies and/or to unwanted waste.

Most interviewees showed that they utilized simulations, cloud systems and IoT to adopt JIT, Kaizen, Jidoka, local sourcing, and waste reduction initiatives. They explained how they benefitted from these technologies to optimize their operations, in terms their procurement of materials, as well as in other areas including in distribution and marketing activities. For instance, the findings clearly reported that IoT can support the implementation of local sourcing of resources, by minimizing the vulnerabilities and logistical costs associated with long SCs and could improve efficiency by providing valuable information about machine health, including predictive maintenance requirements, at logistics centers or warehouses.

This research reported that these tools enabled practitioners to monitor the operational performance in all phases of their SC, including from the selection of suppliers until the delivery of after-sales services to their valued customers. As mentioned above, the utilization of systems such as big data, analytics and the use of cloud technologies for data storage are adding value to the companies’ SC. Data-driven technologies facilitate the exchange of information between marketplace stakeholders (e.g. with intermediaries). They can foster lean management approaches by increasing throughput, addressing bottlenecks, streamlining processes and by reducing delays, resulting in improved productivity, operational efficiencies, better time management and in lower risks for SCs.

Macroenvironmental factors, including political, economic, social, and technological issues could also impact on the businesses’ I4.0 digital transformation and implementation of sustainable operations management. The transition towards a zero-waste model could prove to be a costly, long-term investment for businesses including those operating in the automotive industry. Although financial investments in new technologies could possibly improve operational efficiencies (Camilleri, 2019), there could still be a low demand for them, particularly if I4.0 systems require behavioural changes by their users.

The full list of references are included in the last part of this open-access article: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3211

This research is also available via Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384191949_Leveraging_Industry_40_technologies_for_sustainable_value_chains_Raising_awareness_on_digital_transformation_and_responsible_operations_management

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, digital transformation, Industry 4.0, lean management, Operations Management, Sustainability, sustainable supply chains

The use of Industry 4.0 for social innovation

Featuring snippets from one of my coauthored articles on the intersection of technology adoption and sustainable development.

Suggested citation: Cricelli, L., Mauriello, R., Strazzullo, S. & Camilleri, M.A. (2024). Assessing the impact of Industry 4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of agrifood companies, Business Strategy and the Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3874

Abstract: Industry 4.0 technologies present new opportunities for the sustainable development of companies in the agrifood industry. The extant literature on this topic suggests that innovative technologies can support agrifood companies in addressing environmental, economic, and social sustainability issues. While the environmental and economic benefits of technological innovations in the agrifood industry have been widely investigated, few studies sought to explore the impact of the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies on long-standing social issues. This research addresses this knowledge gap, The data were gathered from 116 Italian agrifood companies that utilized Industry 4.0 technologies. The findings from structural equations modelling partial least squares (SEM-PLS) show that adopting Industry 4.0 technologies helps agrifood companies to improve human resources management, supply chain management, and stakeholder relationships. Finally, this contribution puts forward implications for practitioners, as it raises awareness on the benefits of using technological innovations to promote social sustainability outcomes.

Keywords: Industry 4.0, Technological skills, technological strategy, technological maturity, supply chain management, sustainable supply chain management.

This figure illustrates the model underlying the research hypotheses of this contribution.

An excerpt from the conclusion: recent studies suggest that the adoption of I.40 technologies may have significant social implications for agrifood companies, affecting labour management, supply chain accountability, and relationships with key stakeholders, including governments and consumers (Chandan et al., 2023; Prause, 2021; Rijswijk et al., 2021). Despite this, available literature focuses on the relationship between environmental and economic benefits, while social sustainability implications are currently underinvestigated, especially from an empirical perspective.

This study aimed to help bridge this gap by providing evidence of the impact of I4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of companies in the agrifood industry. To this end, we use data from 116 Italian agrifood companies to validate a theoretical model explaining how the adoption of I4.0 technologies influences the social sustainability of agrifood companies. Specifically, this study focuses on agrifood companies performing cultivation activities, which face unique and relevant social sustainability challenges related to labour, supply chain, and stakeholders’ management. Also, by including companies cultivating a variety of product categories, this study provides some valuable theoretical and practical contributions.

From a theoretical perspective, this study offers two main contributions. First, it validates a conceptual model assessing the impact of I4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of agrifood companies. This advances the literature by providing a framework that can guide future studies on the social implications of technological innovation in the agrifood industry. Second, this study is one of the few to provide empirical evidence of the impact of I4.0 technologies on different aspects of the social sustainability of agrifood companies. This helps explain how technological innovation may influence social sustainability in the agrifood industry and identify further research opportunities. Results show that the development of I4.0 technological skills has a positive impact on all three dimensions of social sustainability. This is consistent with recent literature suggesting that the adoption of I4.0 technologies promotes the development of managerial skills, shifting the role of agricultural workers from executors to decision-makers. Furthermore, the development of I4.0 technological skills enables the use of advanced solutions, which can support operators in the execution of physically demanding tasks (Alves et al., 2023; Lioutas et al., 2021). I4.0 technological skills also positively affect the sustainable management of the supply chain and stakeholder relations, although the reasons are currently under-investigated.

Finally, the results highlight the complexity of the relationship between I4.0 technological strategy and social sustainability. The results reveal a negative relationship between I4.0 technological strategy and sustainable stakeholders’ management, somewhat contradicting recent studies suggesting that an adequate technological innovation strategy is a crucial stepping stone in assisting agrifood companies regain the trust of consumers and society. Advancing an explanation, we hypothesize that the adoption of I4.0 absorbs resources and attention that could have been otherwise directed to address stakeholders’ demands. Finally, a positive relationship was found between I4.0 technological maturity and human resources management, confirming that I4.0 technologies may help companies create healthier work environments, in combination with the development of I4.0 technological skills.

As for practical implications, this study can help managers of these companies analyse and reap the social benefits of adopting I4.0 technologies. Findings show that the introduction of innovative technologies represents a significant opportunity to develop employees’ skills and improve the quality of working conditions, balancing the workloads of field operators. Automation could effectively support cultivation activities, while the use of predictive models could reduce the impact of unpredictable natural factors. Moreover, acquiring advanced and transversal technological skills could provide benefits that go beyond the management of cultivation activities. The use of data provided by modern information systems could simplify communication and coordination with partners and enhance supply chain security, with positive effects on the relationships with stakeholders, including governments and consumers.

Finally, the results suggest managers carefully assess how the company’s I4.0 technological strategy and maturity affect the various dimensions of social sustainability. The findings warn about the risk of focusing exclusively on the company’s needs and losing sight of the interests of supply chain partners and external stakeholders. Despite its contributions, this work is not exempt from limitations. Concerning the sample, this study is based on data obtained from companies operating in specific stages of the Italian agrifood industry. In particular, the study focuses on companies performing cultivation activities in a highly industrialized context. Thus, while adequate to the scope of the study, the sample has limitations. First, it does not include companies that perform product processing and distribution activities. Companies in the meat industry are also excluded. This affects the generalizability of the results, as the study does not provide information on the advantages that I4.0 technologies can offer to such companies.

Furthermore, by focusing on a single country, the study does not account for socioeconomic factors that might affect the results. Future studies can extend the analysis by carrying out crosscountry investigations or by focusing on different geographic areas. Another limitation of the study concerns the use of sociodemographic variables. While providing useful information to outline the profile of the respondents and validate the information sources, the available observations prevented us from capturing any differences in the perceptions of respondents based on variables such as gender or age. Future contributions could focus on assessing how sociodemographic variables mediate individuals’ perception of the impact of I4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of agrifood companies.

In conclusion, we reflect on possible limitations in the theoretical model. Specifically, the absence of previous studies investigating the impact of I4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of agrifood leads to a lack of established metrics and indicators. In this study, we address this shortcoming by referencing established theories such as the RBV to model the technological capability of the company, and the literature on CSR to investigate the multiple facets of social sustainability in the agrifood industry. Despite our efforts to identify all relevant variables, this may have caused us to overlook some important factors. Thus, we elicit future research to extend the analysis and provide additional elements to our framework. Lastly, we point out that this study investigates the impact of I4.0 technologies on the social sustainability of agrifood companies holistically. Therefore, future contributions could obtain different results by focusing on individual technologies or specific applications.

A pre-publication version of the article is available in its entirety through Researchgate. The full list of references can be accessed here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381655799_Assessing_the_impact_of_Industry_40_technologies_on_the_social_sustainability_of_agrifood_companies

Leave a comment

Filed under Industry 4.0, Stakeholder Engagement, Strategic Management, Strategy, Sustainability, technology

Creating shared value through open innovation approaches

This is an excerpt from one of my latest articles that was published through Business Strategy and the Environment.

Big businesses are breaking down traditional silos among their internal departments to improve knowledge flows within their organizations and/or when they welcome external ideas and competences from external organizations (Aakhus & Bzdak, 2015; Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014). Open innovation is related to the degree of trust and openness with a variety of stakeholders (Chesbrough, 2020; Leonidou et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Debately, this concept clearly differentiates itself from closed innovation approaches that are associated with traditional, secretive business models that would primarily rely on the firms’ internal competences and resources. In the latter case, the companies would withhold knowledge about their generation of novel ideas, including incremental and radical innovations within their research and development (R&D) department. They would be wary of leaking information to external parties. This is in stark contract with open innovation.

Open innovation is rooted in the belief that the dissemination of knowledge and collaboration with stakeholders would lead to win-win outcomes for all parties. Chesbrough (2003) argued that companies can maximize the potential of their disruptive innovations if they work in tandem with internal as well as with external stakeholders (rather than on their own) in order to improve products and service delivery. His open innovation model suggests that corporations ought to benefit from diverse pools of knowledge that are distributed among companies, customers, suppliers, universities, research center industry consortia, and startup firms.

Chesbrough (2020) distinguished between different types of insider information that could or could not be leaked to interested parties. He cautioned that sensitive information (he referred to as the “Crown Jewels”) ought to be protected and can never be revealed to external stakeholders. Nevertheless, he argued that an organization can selectively share specific communications with a “Middle Group” comprising key customers, suppliers, and/or partners in order to forge closer relationships with them. The companies’ internal R&D departments can avail themselves from their consumers’ insights as well as from external competences, capabilities, and resources, to cocreate value to their business and to society at large.

Chesbrough (2020) went on to suggest that a company should open-up their “long tail of intellectual property to everyone.” He contended that organizations may do so to save on their patent renewal fees. During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, many businesses joined forces and adopted such an intercompany open innovation approach to mass produce medical equipment. For instance, Ford Motor Co. sent its teams of engineers to consult with counterparts at 3M and General Electric to produce respirators, ventilators, and new 3-D-printed face shields, for the benefit of healthcare employees and COVID-19 patients (Washington Post, 2020).

Corporations are increasingly collaborating with experts hailing from diverse industry sectors to innovate themselves and to search for new sources of competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018). They may usually resort to open innovation approaches when they engage with talented individuals who work on a freelance basis or for other organizations, to benefit from their support. There is scope for companies to forge fruitful relationships with external stakeholders, who may be specialized in specific fields, to help them identify trends, penetrate into new markets, to develop new products, or to diversify their business model, to establish new revenue streams for their firm (Camilleri & Bresciani, 2022; Centobelli, Cerchione, Chiaroni, et al., 2020; Su et al., 2022). These stakeholders can add value to host organizations in their planning, organization, and implementation of social and environmentally sustainable innovations (Camilleri, 2019a; Sajjad et al., 2020).

Open innovation holds great potential to create shared value opportunities for business and society (Aakhus & Bzdak, 2015; Alberti & Varon Garrido, 2017; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018). This argumentation is closely related to the strategic approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to the discourse about corporate sustainability (Camilleri, 2022a; Eweje, 2020). Previous literature confirmed that open innovation processes can have a significant effect on the companies’ triple bottom line in terms of their economic performance as well as on their social and environmental credentials (Gong et al., 2020; Grunwald et al., 2021; Mendes et al., 2021; Testa et al., 2018).

The businesses’ ongoing engagement with their valued employees may result in a boost in their intrinsic motivations, morale, job satisfaction, and low turnover levels and could increase their productivity levels (Camilleri, 2021; Chang, 2020; Kumar & Srivastava, 2020; Schmidt-Keilich & Schrader, 2019). Their collaboration with external (expert) stakeholders may lead to positive outcomes including to knowledge acquisition, operational efficiencies, cost savings, and to creating new revenue streams from the development of innovative projects, among others (Ghodbane, 2019; Huizingh, 2011). Open innovation agreements are clearly evidenced when businesses forge strong relationships with internal and external stakeholders to help them plan, develop, promote, and distribute products (Bresciani, 2017; Camilleri, 2019b; Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Greco et al., 2022; Loučanová et al., 2022; Troise et al., 2021). They may do so to be in a better position to align corporate objectives (including to increase their bottom lines) with their social and environmental performance (Alberti & Varon Garrido, 2017; Herrera & de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Mendes et al., 2021).

This paper provides a clear definition of the most popular paradigms relating to the intersection of open innovation approaches and corporate sustainability, as reported in Table 1.

Table 1. A list of the most popular paradigms relating to the intersection of open innovation approaches and corporate sustainability

“The following section synthesizes the content that was reported in past contributions. The researchers deliberate about open innovation opportunities and challenges for host organizations as well as for their collaborators”.

Open innovation opportunities

In the main, many commentators noted that open innovation approaches have brought positive outcomes for host organizations and their collaborators. The research questions of the extracted contributions (that are reported in Table 2) indicated that in many cases, companies are striving in their endeavors to build productive relationships with different stakeholders (Mtapuri et al., 2022; Peña-Miranda et al., 2022; Shaikh & Randhawa, 2022), to create value to their businesses as well as to society (Döll et al., 2022; Ghodbane, 2019; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018). Very often, they confirmed that open innovation practitioners are promoting organizational governance (Aakhus & Bzdak, 2015; Sánchez-Teba et al., 2021), fair labor practices (Chang, 2020; Herrera & de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Kumar & Srivastava, 2020; Schmidt-Keilich & Schrader, 2019), environmentally responsible investments (Aakhus & Bzdak, 2015; Cigir, 2018; Mendes et al., 2021; van Lieshout et al., 2021; Yang & Roh, 2019), and consumer-related issues (Greco et al., 2022; Loučanová et al., 2022; Wu & Zhu, 2021; Yang & Roh, 2019), among other laudable behaviors.

Many researchers raised awareness on the corporate sustainability paradigm (van Marrewijk, 2003) as they reported about the businesses’ value creating activities that are synonymous with the triple bottom line discourse, in terms of their organizations’ social, environment, and economic performance (Chang, 2020; Döll et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022; van Lieshout et al., 2021; Yang & Roh, 2019).

Other authors identified strategic CSR (Fontana, 2017; Porter & Kramer, 2006) practices and discussed about shared value perspectives (Abdulkader et al., 2020; Porter & Kramer, 2011) that are intended to improve corporate financial performance while enhancing their social and environmental responsibility credentials among stakeholders (Ghodbane, 2019; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018; Sánchez-Teba et al., 2021).

Mendes et al. (2021) argued that strategic CSR was evidenced through collaborative approaches involving employees and external stakeholders. They maintained that there is scope for businesses to reconceive their communication designs with a wide array of stakeholders. Similarly, Aakhus and Bzdak (2015) contended that stakeholder engagement and open innovation processes led to improved decision making, particularly when host organizations consider investing in resources and infrastructures to be in a better position to address the social, cultural, and environmental concerns.

Firms could implement open innovation approaches to benefit from outsiders’ capabilities and competences (of other organizations, including funders, partners, and beneficiaries, among others) (Alberti & Varon Garrido, 2017). They may benefit from the external stakeholders’ support to diversify their business and/or to develop innovative products and services. Their involvement could help them augment their financial performance in terms of their margins and return on assets (Ben Hassen & Talbi, 2022).

Ongoing investments in open and technological innovations in terms of process and product development can result in virtuous circles and positive multiplier effects for the businesses as well as to society. Practitioners can forge cooperative agreements with social entrepreneurs, for-profit organizations, or with non-profit entities. Many companies are increasingly recruiting consultants who are specialized in sustainable innovations. Alternatively, they engage corporate reporting experts to help them improve their ESG credentials with stakeholders (Holmes & Smart, 2009).

Such open innovation approaches are intrinsically related to key theoretical underpinnings related to CSR including the stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory, and to the legitimacy theory, among others (Authors; Freudenreich et al., 2020). Firms have a responsibility to bear toward societies where they operate their business (in addition to their economic responsibility to increase profits). Their collaborative stance with knowledgeable professionals may provide an essential impetus for them to improve their corporate reputation and image with customers and prospects.

The open innovation paradigm suggests that it is in the businesses’ interest to engage with stakeholders through outside-in (to benefit from external knowledge and expertise), inside-out (to avail themselves of their extant competences and capabilities), and coupled (cocreation) processes with internal and external stakeholders (Enkel et al., 2009; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018). Its theorists claim that outside-in processes are intended to enhance the company’s knowledge as they source external information from marketplace stakeholders including suppliers, intermediaries, customers, and even competitors, among others.

Many researchers emphasize that there are a number of benefits resulting from coopetition among cooperative competitors. Their inside-out collaborative processes stimulate innovations, lead to improvements in extant technologies, and provide complementary resources, resulting in new markets and products. Competing businesses can exchange their ideas and innovations with trustworthy stakeholders, outside of their organizations’ boundaries in order to improve their socio-emotional wealth (Herrera & de las Heras-Rosas, 2020). The proponents of open innovation advocate that businesses ought to foster an organizational culture that promotes knowledge transfer, ongoing innovations, and internationalization strategies.

Michelino et al. (2019) held that organizations ought to engage in ambidextrous approaches. These authors commended that practitioners should distinguish between exploratory and traditional units of their business model. They posited that it would be better for them if they segregated the former from the latter ones, especially if they want to develop new processes, products, and technologies in mature markets. The organizations’ exploratory units could be in a better position to flexibly respond to ongoing changes in their marketing environment.

Other researchers noted that it would be better if the businesses’ R&D activities are attuned with the practitioners’ expertise and/or with their stakeholders who are involved in their open innovation knowledge sharing strategies (Talab et al., 2018). Companies can generate new sources of revenue streams, even in areas that are associated with social issues and/or with green economies, if they reach new customers in different markets (Centobelli, Cerchione, & Esposito, 2020; Chang, 2020; Su et al., 2022; Yang & Roh, 2019). They may partner with other organizations to commercialize their (incremental or radical) innovations through licensing fees, franchises, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, spinoffs, and so forth.

Many commentators made reference to coupled processes involving a combination of outside-in and inside-out open innovation processes (Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018). The businesses’ transversal alliances involving horizontal and vertical collaborative approaches with external stakeholders can help them co-create ideas to foster innovations (Greco et al., 2022; Rupo et al., 2018). Several open innovation theorists are increasingly raising awareness on how collaborative relationships with stakeholders including consumers, lead users, organizations who may or may not be related to the company per se, universities as well as research institutions, among others, are supporting various businesses in their R&D stages and/or in the design of products (Khan et al., 2022; Naruetharadhol et al., 2022). Very often, their research confirmed that such cocreation processes are utilized in different contexts, for the manufacturing of a wide range of technologies.

The findings from this review reported that, for the time being, just a few researchers are integrating open innovation’s cocreation approaches with corporate sustainability outcomes. A number of contributing authors insisted that there are many advantages for socially and environmentally responsible companies to embrace open innovation approaches (Carayannis et al., 2021; Cigir, 2018; Mendes et al., 2021; Yang & Roh, 2019). In many cases, they argued that the practitioners’ intentions are to broaden their search activities and to avail themselves from talented employees and external experts in exchange for enhanced social legitimacy, thereby availing themselves of innovation capital for future enterprising activities (Greco et al., 2022; Holmes & Smart, 2009).

Hence, businesses may benefit from the competences and capabilities of individual consultants and organizations (from outside their company) to tap into the power of co-creation, to source ideas for social and green innovations (van Lieshout et al., 2021). These alliances are meant to support laudable causes, address the deficits in society, and/or to minimize the businesses’ impact on the natural environment (Altuna et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2022). For-profit organizations can resort to open innovation approaches to avail themselves of resources and infrastructures that are not currently available within their firm. This way they can reduce their costs, risks, and timescales when diversifying into sustainable business ventures, including those related to social entrepreneurship projects (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Shapovalov et al., 2019). They may do so to leverage their business, to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals.

Open innovation challenges

Open innovations could expose the businesses to significant risks and uncertainties associated with enmeshed, permeable relationships with potential collaborators (Gomes et al., 2021; Madanaguli et al., 2023). Various authors contended that practitioners should create an organizational culture that is conducive to open innovation (Herrera & de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Mohelska & Sokolova, 2017). Generally, they argued that host organizations should communicate and liaise with employees as well as with external partners, during the generation of ideas and in different stages of their R&D projects. Some researchers noted that open innovation practitioners tend to rely on their external stakeholders’ valuable support to diversify their business models, products, or services (Chalvatzis et al., 2019; Park & Tangpong, 2021; Su et al., 2022).

A number of academic commentators argued that practitioners have to set clear, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely goals to them before they even start working on a project together (Alberti & Varon Garrido, 2017). In many cases, they maintained that host organizations are expected to foster a strong relationship with collaborators. At the same time, they should ensure that the latter ones comply with their modus operandi (Dahlander & Wallin, 2020). In reality, it may prove difficult for the business leaders to trust the new partners. Unlike their employees, the external parties are not subject to the companies’ codes of conduct, rules, and regulations (Chesbrough, 2020; Shamah & Elssawabi, 2015). A few authors indicated that senior management may utilize extrinsic and intrinsic incentives to empower and motivate internal as well as external stakeholders to pursue their organization’s open innovation objectives (Chang, 2020; Greco et al., 2022; Holmes & Smart, 2009; Roszkowska-Menkes, 2018; Schmidt-Keilich & Schrader, 2019).

Some researchers identified possible threats during and after the implementation of joint projects. Very often, they contended that host organizations risk losing their locus of control to external stakeholders who are experts in their respective fields (Madanaguli et al., 2023). The latter ones may possess unique skills and competences that are not readily available within the organization. A few authors cautioned that the practitioners as well as their collaborators are entrusted to safeguard each other’s intangible assets. A number of researchers warned and cautioned that they may risk revealing insider information about sensitive commercial details relating to their intellectual capital (Gomes et al., 2021). As a result, companies may decide to collaborate on a few peripheral tasks as they may be wary of losing their return on investments if they share trade secrets with their new partners, who could easily become their competitors. Their proprietary knowledge concerns are of course real and vital for their future prospects. Therefore, their relationships with internal and external stakeholders should be based on mutual trust and understanding in order to increase the confidence in the projects’ outcomes (Ferraris et al., 2020; Sánchez-Teba et al., 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

The companies’ ongoing engagement with internal and external stakeholders as well as their strategic CSR initiatives and environmentally sustainable innovations can generate economic value, in the long run. This review confirms that for-profit organizations are increasingly using open innovation approaches. At the same time, they are following ethical practices, adopting responsible human resources management policies, and investing in green technologies to gain institutional legitimacy and to create competitive advantages for their business. Many authors reported that their corporate sustainability behaviors can enhance their organizations’ reputation and image among customers as well as with marketplace stakeholders. At the same time, their laudable practices may even improve their corporate financial performance.

During COVID-19, many businesses turned to open innovation’s collaborative approaches. Various stakeholders joined forces and worked with other organizations, including with competitors, on social projects that benefit the communities where they operate their companies. In many cases, practitioners have realized that such partnerships with certain stakeholders (like researchers, knowledgeable experts, creative businesses, and non-governmental institutions, among others) enable their organizations to find new ways to solve pressing problems and at the same time helped them build a positive reputation. Indeed, open innovation approaches can serve as a foundation for future win-win alliances, in line with sociological research demonstrating that trust develops when partners voluntarily go the extra mile, to create value to their business and to society at large.

Yet, this research revealed that there is still a gap in the academic literature that links CSR/corporate sustainability with open collaborative approaches. At the time of writing, this paper, there were only 45 contributions on the intersection of these notions.

A full version of this open-access paper can be accessed through publisher: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bse.3377

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, Business, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, environment, Open Innovation, Shared Value

How can we combat climate change?

This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2022). The rationale for ISO 14001 certification: A systematic review and a cost-benefit analysis, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2254

Source: UNFCCC.int

During the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21), one hundred ninety-six (196) countries pledged their commitment to implement environmental performance measures to reduce the effects of climate change. This conference has led to the development of the ‘Paris Agreement’ where signatories became legally bound to limit global warming to below 2°C, and possibly 1.5°C (Palea & Drogo, 2020; Secinaro, Brescia, Calandra & Saiti, 2020). They recognized the importance of averting and minimizing the environmental impact that is caused by climate change, by scaling up their efforts and support initiatives to reduce emissions, by building resilience among parties, and by promoting cooperation (Birindelli & Chiappini, 2021; Gatto, 2020).

In the aftermath of COP 21, many countries submitted their plans for climate action (these plans are also known as nationally determined contributions – NDCs), where they communicated about their tangible actions that were aimed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of rising temperatures (Fatica & Panzica, 2021; Gerged, Matthews & Elheddad, 2021).  Consequentially, intergovernmental organizations including the European Union (EU), among others, are increasingly establishing ambitious carbon neutrality goals and zero-carbon solutions to tackle climate change issues (Benz, Paulus, Scherer, Syryca & Trück, 2021).

Many countries are incentivizing businesses across different economic sectors, to reduce their emissions. For example, the EU member states are expected to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% before 2030, and by 60% prior to 2050 (EU, 2019). These targets would require the commitment of stakeholders from various sectors including those operating within the energy and transportation industries, among others.

The latest climate change conference (COP26) suggested that progress has been made on the signatories’ mitigation measures that were aimed to reduce emissions, on their adaptation efforts to deal with climate change impacts, on the mobilization of finance, and on the increased collaboration among countries to reach 2030 emissions targets. However, more concerted efforts are required to deliver on these four pledges (UNFCC, 2021).

This contribution raises awareness on the use of environmental management standards that are intended to support organizations of different types and sizes, including private entities, not-for-profits as well as governmental agencies, to improve their environmental performance credentials. A thorough review of the relevant literature suggests that, over the years many practitioners have utilized the International Standards Organization’s ISO 14001 environment management systems standard to assist them in their environmental management issues (Baek, 2018; Delmas & Toffel, 2008; Erauskin‐Tolosa, Zubeltzu‐Jaka, Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Boiral, 2020; Melnyk, Sroufe & Calantone, 2003).

Many academic commentators noted that several practitioners operating in different industry sectors, in various contexts, are implementing ISO 14001 requirements to obtain this standard’s certification (Boiral, Guillaumie, Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Tayo Tene, 2018; Para‐González & Mascaraque‐Ramírez, 2019; Riaz, & Saeed, 2020). Whilst several researchers contended about the benefits of abiding by voluntary principles and guidelines (Camilleri, 2018), others discussed about the main obstacles to obtaining impartial audits, assurances and certifications from independent standard setters (Hillary, 2004; Ma, Liu, Appolloni & Liu, 2021; Robèrt, Schmidt-Bleek, Aloisi De Larderel … & Wackernagel, 2002; Teng & Wu, 2018).

Hence, this research examines identifies the rationale for ISO 14001 certification (Carvalho, Santos & Gonçalves, 2020; Eltayeb, Zailani & Ramayah, 2011; Lee, Noh, Choi & Rha, 2017; Potoski & Prakash, 2005) that is supposedly intended to improve the organizations’ environmental performance and to enhance their credentials. Specifically, this contribution’s objectives are threefold. Firstly, it provides a generic background on voluntary instruments, policies and guidelines that are intended to promote corporate environmentally responsible behaviors. Secondly, it presents the results from a systematic review of academic articles that were focused on ISO 14001 – environment management systems. Thirdly, it synthesizes the findings from high impact papers and discusses about the benefits and costs of using this standard. In conclusion, it elaborates on the implications of this research, it identifies its limitations and points out future research avenues.

In sum, this contribution differentiates itself from previous articles, particularly those that sought to investigate the introduction and implementation of environment management systems in specific entities. This research involves a two-stage systematic analysis. It appraises a number of empirical investigations, theoretical articles, reviews, case studies, discursive/opinion papers, from 1995-2021. Afterwards, it scrutinizes their content to shed more light on the pros and cons of using ISO 14001 as a vehicle to improve corporate environmental performance.

This paper can be downloaded, in its entirety, through ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358557458_The_rationale_for_ISO_14001_certification_A_systematic_review_and_a_cost-benefit_analysis

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Circular Economy, corporate citizenship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, environment, Sustainability, sustainable development

How to reduce food loss (and waste) from the hospitality industry?

This is an excerpt from one of my latest academic contributions.

(C) Travlinmad.com

Hospitality businesses can implement a number of responsible practices. The very first step for them is to develop ‘sustainable’ menus. The restaurants’ menus can offer a choice of different portion sizes to satisfy the requirements of different customers. They may feature fewer items in their menus to operate their business with a reduced inventory of food products to decrease storage costs, minimize waste and spoilage. It is in the interest of restaurant owner-managers to procure fresh ingredients from local businesses including farmers, bakers, butchers, et cetera, to ensure that they are preparing good food for their valued customers. Local products including organic items like fruit and vegetables, will have a longer shelf life than imported ones.

The hospitality businesses ought to forge close relationships with dependable, local suppliers to implement just-in-time purchasing systems (Camilleri, 2015a; Camilleri, 2017a). There is scope for them to purchase regularly and in smaller quantities to reduce the probabilities of food spoilage and dehydration. They are expected to continuously monitor the expiration dates of their food items and ingredients to minimize waste and to respect relevant hygienic standards. Owner-managers may apply the first expired first out (FEFO) principles in their kitchens, to avoid any stock-outs.  Moreover, they can use food tracking devices to identify the types of food waste they are generating.

Their monitoring and control of food waste should be carried out on a day-to-day basis, as it can lead to significant operational efficiencies and cost savings.  Practitioners may keep a track record of their waste in a spreadsheet. They can measure the quantity of organic waste that is generated from their premises. They may include details like the dates (and times of events), which ingredients or recipes were wasted, the name of the employee(s) who was (or were) responsible for the waste, et cetera. Furthermore, practitioners can estimate the composition of their organic waste and identify whether it is derived from vegetables, bread/pasta, specific meats, etc. This will allow them to make adjustments in their food menus (if possible).

Such food trackers may also help the hospitality business to detect irresponsible behaviors in their kitchens and to minimize food waste from their properties. It may indicate that certain employees are not engaging in responsible food preparation behaviors. There is scope for hospitality businesses to train their human resources, at all levels, particularly new employees, on circular economy approaches [Camilleri, 2014). This way, they will be in a better position to improve their efficiencies in terms of reducing, reusing and recycling resources, and responsible waste disposal practices (Camilleri, 2019a; Camilleri, 2020). They have to be supported and educated on the best practices to ensure that they are improving the (economic) sustainability of their businesses’ food and beverage operations whilst minimizing their impact on the natural environment (Camilleri, 2015b; Camilleri, 2016a; Camilleri, 2017). Table 1 illustrates the responsible behaviors that can be implemented by hospitality businesses to reduce food loss and the generation of waste from their premises:

This research shed light on a number of laudable circular economy initiatives that were drawn from the hospitality industry. It also made reference to a sustainable enterprise that utilizes a sharing economy platform that links consumers with hospitality service providers. Mobile users can purchase surplus food from hotels, restaurants and cafes at a discount. At the same time, the app enables the businesses to make revenue out of their perishable food and to minimize their environmental footprint by reducing their waste. Moreover, it reported that businesses can benefit from tax deductions and credit systems, in different contexts, if they donate surplus (edible) food to charities and food banks.  Alternatively, if the food is contaminated or decayed it may be accumulated and turned it into animal feed, compost or transformed into energy through methanation processes. The case studies indicated that the re-utilization of non-edible leftovers may be monetized if they are used for such secondary purposes.

Key Takeaways

The implementation and execution of the circular economy’s closed loop systems ought to be promoted through different marketing channels. Hotels and restaurants can use marketing communications through different media to raise awareness on how they are capable of generating less waste (Camilleri, 2016b). They should promote sustainable production and consumption behaviors through different media outlets, including traditional and digital channels (Camilleri & Costa, 2018; Camilleri, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c).

The hospitality businesses responsible initiatives can raise their profile among different stakeholders, including customers and suppliers, among others (Camilleri, 2015; 2018d). The customers will probably appreciate the hospitality businesses’ efforts to reduce their impact to the natural environment. Some of their sustainability measures are dependent on the active commitment of hotel clients and restaurant patrons. Therefore, it is very important for them to raise awareness about their waste prevention campaigns and on their environmental achievements so that they may feel part of the responsible initiatives. This way, they become key participants in the reduction of generated waste. Hence, businesses can educate customers about responsible consumption behaviors to help them in their endeavors to curb food loss and the generation of unnecessary waste [Camilleri & Ratten, 2020; Camilleri, 2019b). The food and beverage servers could engage in conversations with their clients to better understand their food requirements.

In a similar vein, this research suggests that the hospitality businesses ought to forge closer relationships with their suppliers including farmers and other retailers, to implement responsible inventory management systems and just-in-time purchasing. Suppliers must continuously be informed and updated on their procurement policies. Their ongoing communications may facilitate collaborative practices that may translate to positive outcomes, including the sourcing of better-quality products with extended lifecycles and longer expiry dates. 

This contribution reported various preventative measures and recycling practices that may be taken on board by hospitality practitioners and their stakeholders, to reduce food waste and its detrimental effect on our natural environment and biospheres. There is scope for trade unions and industry associations in tourism and hospitality, to promote the responsible behaviors, among their members.

Notwithstanding, regulatory authorities and their policy makers can encourage hospitality practitioners to invest in environmentally friendly systems to minimize their food loss and waste. They can offer them financial incentives like tax deductions or exemptions when they donate surplus food. Alternatively, governments can support them by providing adequate infrastructures and resources including on-site composting facilities and/or methanization processes that are aimed to minimize the accumulation of food waste that finishes in landfills. Such responsible investments will ultimately result in a sustainable value chain in tourism cities, as they add value to the hospitality businesses, to the environment and to society, at large (Salonen & Camilleri, 2020; Camilleri, 2017b).

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). Sustainable Production and Consumption of Food. Mise-en-Place Circular Economy Policies and Waste Management Practices in Tourism Cities. Sustainability, 13, 9986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179986 (OPEN ACCESS)

References

Camilleri, M.A. (2014). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In Marketing & Public Policy as a Force for Social Change Conference. Proceedings pp. 8-14 (Washington D.C., 4th June), American Marketing Association (AMA), Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273131156_The_Business_Case_for_Corporate_Social_Responsibility.

Camilleri, M.A. (2015a). Re-conceiving CSR programmes for education. In Corporate Social Responsibility: Academic Insights and Impacts, Vertigans, S. & Idowu, S.O. (Eds), Springer: Cham, Swtizerland, http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783319350820

Camilleri, M.A. (2015b). Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6, 2, 224-242. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065 

Camilleri M.A. (2016a). Corporate sustainability and responsibility toward education, Journal of Global Responsibility 7, 1, 56-71, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JGR-08-2015-0015

Camilleri M.A. (2016b). Reconceiving corporate social responsibility for business and educational outcomes. Cogent Business and Management, 3, 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1142044

Camilleri, M.A. (2017a) Corporate citizenship and social responsibility policies in the United States of America. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8, 1, 77-93. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2016-0023

Camilleri, M.A. (2017b). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: Creating value for business, society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 2, 1, 59-74. https://ajssr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5

Camilleri, M.A. (2018a). The promotion of responsible tourism management through digital media. Tourism Planning & Development15, 6, 653-671. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21568316.2017.1393772

Camilleri, M.A. (2018b). Unlocking corporate social responsibility through digital media. In Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Era.  Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., Maon, F. and Watkins, R. (Eds), Routledge: Oxford, United Kingdom, https://www.routledge.com/Communicating-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-in-the-Digital-Era/Lindgreen-Vanhamme-Watkins/p/book/9781472484161

Camilleri, M.A. (2018c) Unleashing corporate social responsibility communication for small businesses in the digital era. In Academy of Management Annual Conference Proceedings: Improving Lives, Chicago, 11 August 2018, Academy of Management. Available online: https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10467abstract

Camilleri, M.A. (2018d). Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23, 4,  567-581.  https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2018-0016:

Camilleri, M.A. & Costa, R. A. (2018). The small businesses’ responsible entrepreneurship and their stakeholder engagement through digital media. 13th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE) (11 September). University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233528 (accessed on 24 August 2021).

Camilleri, M. A. (2019a). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development27(3), 530-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1909

Camilleri, M.A. (2019b). Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes towards ISO’s social responsibility standard. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30, 13-14, 1549-1561. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344

Camilleri, M. A. (2020). European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development28(6), 1804-1812.https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.2113

Camilleri, M.A. & Ratten, V. (2020). The sustainable development of smart cities through digital innovation. Sustainability, Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Smart_Cities_Digital_Innovation (accessed on 24 August 2021).

Salonen A.O. & Camilleri M.A. (2020). Creating Shared Value. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, Idowu S., Schmidpeter R., Capaldi N., Zu L., Del Baldo M. and Abreu R. (eds), Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3683975

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Hospitality, Marketing, tourism

Call for chapters: “Advancing the Circular Economy for a Sustainable Future”

Abstract submission deadline: 30th June 2020
Full chapters due: 31st December 2020

The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as; “development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). Its underlying assumption is that the world’s physical resources are not finite; therefore, they have to be managed responsibly to sustain future generations (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014). Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development has put forward Agenda 21 that dedicated a chapter that was focused on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This document recommended that the UN’s member states ought to intensify their efforts to reduce the use of scarce resources during production processes, whilst minimising the environmental impacts from the generation of waste and pollution (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014; Agenda 21, 1992).

In 2002, the UN Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development also made reference to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The UN’s member states were urged to manage their natural resources in a sustainable manner and with lower negative environmental impacts; by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, whilst reducing waste (WSSD, 2002, p. 13). Moreover, in another resolution, entitled; “The future we want,” the General Assembly at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing green economy policies in the context of sustainable development. The heads of state and government or their representatives have agreed to continue promoting the integrated and sustainable management of ecosystems, whilst facilitating their conservation, regeneration, and restoration of resources (UNCSD, 2012). Furthermore, during the UN’s General Assembly Resolution of September 25 2015 entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” the world leaders have agreed to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals that replaced the previous millennium development goals that were established in the year 2000. Specifically, the Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the 2030 agenda, namely, “Sustainable Consumption and Production” explained that there is an opportunity for business and industry to reap economic gains through resource and energy efficiencies. It also raised awareness on the use of sustainable infrastructures and urged the UN member states to address air, water, and soil pollution to minimise their environmental impact (UNDP, 2015). Moreover, the Paris Climate Agreement (COP 21) and Resolutions 1/5 and 2/7 on chemicals and waste, and 2/8 on sustainable production and consumption, as adopted by the first and second sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (that was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on the June 27, 2014 and the May 27, 2016), are also considered as important policy instruments for many stakeholders, as they have paved the way for the transition towards the CE strategy.

These intergovernmental policy recommendations on sustainable consumption and production have led to increased regulatory pressures on business and industry towards controlled operations management and environmentally responsible practices.

Relevant theoretical underpinnings reported that the circular economy reduces the reliance on resource extraction and raw materials (Camilleri, 2018b; Camilleri, 2017; Cooper, 1999). Therefore, it restores any damage in resource acquisition by ensuring that little waste is generated throughout the production process and during the products’ life. Liu, Li, Zuo, Zhang, and Wang (2009) explained that the circular economy aims at minimising the generation of waste, as it involves environmental conservation. Similarly, Su, Heshmati, Geng, and Yu (2013) contended that the circular economy strategy involves efficiency‐oriented control systems at all stages of production, distribution, and consumption of materials. They made reference to energy efficiency and water conservation, land management, and soil protection, among other issues. Hence, the circular economy model can lead to resource and energy efficiencies as well as economic development.

In this light, the publisher is calling for theoretical and empirical contributions that are focused on the sustainable production and consumption of resources, materials and products. Therefore, the readers of this publication will be in a better position to understand the operations and strategies in manufacturing industries as well as in closed loop and product-service systems (Camilleri, 2018a). This special issue will include but is not limited to the following topics:

  • Alternative consumption patterns;
  • Assessment and Reporting;
  • Biomass;
  • Clean production;
  • Circular economy;
  • Circular economy business models;
  • Circular economy product designs;
  • Climate change;
  • Climate change policy and adaptation;
  • Closed loop systems;
  • Corporate social responsibility;
  • Corporate sustainability,
  • Eco-efficiency;
  • Eco-industrial parks;
  • Ecological management and natural capital;
  • Education for sustainability;
  • Emissions reduction;
  • Energy efficiency;
  • Energy policy;
  • Energy use and consumption;
  • Environmental assessment;
  • Environmental behavior;
  • Environmental economics;
  • Environmental management;
  • Environmental policy;
  • Environmental protection;
  • Environmental sustainability;
  • Extended producer responsibility;
  • Footprints and other assessment types;
  • Green/sustainable engineering;
  • Green/sustainable supply chains;
  • Industrial, agricultural and supply chains;
  • Industrial ecology;
  • Life cycle assessment;
  • Pollution reduction;
  • Product-service systems;
  • Recycling Resources;
  • Regional sustainability;
  • Renewable energy;
  • Renewable resource;
  • Resource and energy use;
  • Resource Efficiency;
  • Sustainable consumption;
  • Sustainable production;
  • Sustainable tourism;
  • Urban and regional sustainability;
  • Water conservation;
  • Waste management;
  • Waste minimization;

 

Submission Procedure

Academics and researchers are invited to submit a 300-word abstract before the 30th June 2020. Submissions should be sent to Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt. Authors will be notified about the editorial decision during July 2020. The accepted chapters should be submitted before the 31st December 2020. The length of the chapters should be around 7,000 words (including references, figures and tables). The references should be presented in APA style (Version 6). All submitted chapters will be critically reviewed on a double-blind review basis. All authors will be requested to serve as reviewers for this book. They will receive a notification of acceptance, rejection or suggested modifications –before the 25th February 2021.

 

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for the publication of the book chapters. All abstracts / proposals should be submitted via the editor’s email.

 

Editor

Prof.  Dr. Mark Anthony Camilleri (Ph.D. Edinburgh)

Department of Corporate Communication,

Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences,

University of Malta, MALTA.

Email: mark.a.camilleri@um.edu.mt

 

Publisher

Following the double-blind peer review process, the full chapters will be submitted to Emerald for final review. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.emerald.com/insight/. This prospective publication will be released in 2021.

 

References

Agenda 21.1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

Camilleri, M. (2014). Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development11(1), 42-56.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Closing the Loop of the Circular Economy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. In Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (pp. 175-190). Springer, Cham.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018a). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development27(3), 530-536.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018b). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: A critical review of the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development.21(1-4), 1-17.

Cooper, T. (1999). Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. Journal of Sustainable Product Design8, 7– 17.

Liu, Q., Li, H. M., Zuo, X. L., Zhang, F. F., & Wang, L. (2009). A survey and analysis on public awareness and performance for promoting circular economy in China: A case study from Tianjin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 265– 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.003

Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production42, 215– 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020

UNCSD (2012). Future we want—Outcome document. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. United Nations General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E.

UNDP (2015). Transforming our world. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.

WCED (1987). Our common future. In World commission on environment and development. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University press.

WSSD (2002). United Nations report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August‐ 4 September 2002. http://www.un‐documents.net/aconf199‐20.pdf.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, sustainable development