IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbexc/v28y2022i4p544-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of sustainable alternatives for restaurants using the fuzzy TOPSIS method

Author

Listed:
  • Deoclécio Junior Cardoso da Silva
  • Denise Adriana Johann
  • Jones Luís Schaefer
  • Andriele de Fátima Nunes
  • Ranice Hoehr Pedrazzi Pozzer
  • Edio Polacinski

Abstract

The sustainability context has received great attention considering the aspects of the current market. In this context, the objective of this paper is to evaluate sustainable alternatives under the perspective of restaurant managers in a federal university in Brazil. Using alternatives focused on sustainability in restaurants, an evaluation under the perspective of different managers to determine the alternatives that stand out the most in the sense of boosting restaurants' sustainability was established. Data referring to the alternatives were obtained from restaurant managers, and the best sustainable alternatives were ranked using the fuzzy TOPSIS method. The results showed that the best alternatives were the correct destination and disposal of burnt cooking oil as well as the reduction of food waste. It was also possible to verify that the restaurants are developing good sustainable practices, and with the results, this paper can offer subsidies about sustainability alternatives for restaurant managers.

Suggested Citation

  • Deoclécio Junior Cardoso da Silva & Denise Adriana Johann & Jones Luís Schaefer & Andriele de Fátima Nunes & Ranice Hoehr Pedrazzi Pozzer & Edio Polacinski, 2022. "Evaluation of sustainable alternatives for restaurants using the fuzzy TOPSIS method," International Journal of Business Excellence, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 28(4), pages 544-566.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbexc:v:28:y:2022:i:4:p:544-566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=127498
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijbexc:v:28:y:2022:i:4:p:544-566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=291 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.