>As for the "reducing food waste" concept - no store actually wants to achieve this. Think about it - actively trying to get people to buy less of what you sell is pretty bad for business.
Which is why it's ripe for disruption. The consumer could be better off, a company that isn't in the space already could be better off, they're the people who need to make it happen.
There's the other half of the chain as well - the suppliers. If they know selling to NewFancyStoreWithLessFoodWaste leads to an end-game where there is less demand for their products, why should they bother?
Because the disruptor might succeed with or without them and the disruptor might treat them more favorably (at first) than the status quo.
My neighbor grows soybeans, and he hates the guy who buys his soybeans. If someone came in and treated him better and paid him more, I think he'd leap at the chance to sell his crop to them even if it imperiled the future.
Besides, suppliers aren't monolithic. Many suppliers are scrapping for new business or ways to differentiate themselves. Better farmers could be more successful in a paradigm where they could earn extra money for healthy plants than say selling to walmart who simply pays a fixed price if the plants meet minimum standards.
Which is why it's ripe for disruption. The consumer could be better off, a company that isn't in the space already could be better off, they're the people who need to make it happen.