randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11669_Hospitalityr… · Web viewGeneral Enquiries on the form should be made to: Defra, Procurements and Commercial

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 27

mailto:[email protected]

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code FO0425

2. Project title

Reducing the environmental impacts of the hospitality and food service supply chain: Summary Report

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Oakdene Hollins

54. Total Defra project costs £ 67,000(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ April 2012

end date................. September 2013


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that

they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain


Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

This report provides a review of resource efficiency activity within the UK hospitality and food service (HaFS) sector. The report details the findings from a literature review and stakeholder interviews undertaken between March and September 2012. It breaks down the HaFS sector into nine sub-sectors: restaurants, pubs, quick service restaurants (QSRs), hotels, leisure, education, healthcare, staff catering, and services (e.g. prisons).

The key conclusions from the review are:

Complexity of the food service supply models: The food service sector comprises four different service models which have varying degrees of production and food preparation, namely; conventional (cook and serve), ready-prepared (cook and chill or cook and freeze), assembly–serve and centralised.

The type of service model used is not specific to the sub-sector, meaning that generic approaches to resource efficiency are unlikely to be appropriate. For example, it is difficult to benchmark in terms of waste generated or energy or water consumed per meal at the sector level, or even at the sub-sector level, because of the differing approaches being used. Specific functions within a kitchen operation can be benchmarked, however; for example, water use in spray nozzles and dishwashers, or energy consumption per oven. This follows the Energy Star approach in the USA. Due to the different supply chain models, a whole life cycle approach should be used: a food service outlet generating minimal waste or consuming minimal energy or water cannot necessarily be regarded as best - or even good - practice if the impacts of the operation take effect elsewhere in the supply chain.

Measurement: Many food service outlets do not measure the waste being generated or the energy and water being used. Contract caterers cite the difficulty in measuring performance at client premises (business and industry, education and health sectors) to be the major barrier. ‘Down the drain’ waste (via a sink disposal unit or SDU) is rarely monitored and yet can account for up to 50% by weight of total avoidable food waste1. Automated Meter Reading systems are becoming more popular in monitoring energy usage, and the larger food service companies are introducing waste monitoring systems - for example, the Compass ‘Trim Trax’ system. For measurement to be most effective, any data gathered should be fed back to individuals or teams within the organisation or its supply chain who have power to change processes accordingly.

Energy: Large companies typically operate a scheduled equipment replacement programme, applying ‘whole life cycle costing’. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and especially micro-companies are more likely to adopt a ‘distressed purchase’ approach, waiting for equipment to break down before replacement. Under such circumstances, replacement is likely to be based on purchase price and convenience. This can lead companies to purchase domestic equipment from local retailers rather than more energy efficient commercial equipment. Meanwhile changing behaviour, e.g. through switch off/on policies, can have a significant impact on energy usage. The Carbon Trust recommends that determining and communicating the warm-up times on equipment is a first step in ensuring equipment is not switched on too early.

Waste: Regardless of their size, there are clear financial benefits to food service businesses, although for larger concerns, the corporate social responsibility agenda and procurement pressure can also be factors. However, there is still huge scope for improvement, and establishing monitoring and feedback protocols is an important first step towards addressing this deficit.

Making kitchen operations simpler to reduce labour costs, coupled with procurement of pre-prepared meals or meal components, can reduce lead times and cut preparation waste. Mistake-proofing - through the use of timers and temperature settings - also minimises preparation waste, while better inventory management (e.g. through use of FiFo racks) reduces the waste of date-expired meals or ingredients. Menu planning, customer feedback systems and portion control systems all tackle the issue of plate waste.

The single heaviest item of packaging is glass. 61% of all packaging within the sector is glass, arising mainly from pubs, restaurants and hotels. Lightweighting and material substitution are two key waste prevention initiatives for glass. Some food service companies now procure supplies in returnable transit

1 WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry


packaging (RTP), although the practice is less common than in other sectors (e.g. retail, automotive). Cardboard remains a high volume waste for the industry, so a move to high recycled content cardboard, which is itself recycled, presents a more immediate opportunity. The benefits of a switch to RTP should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, since it works best with:

a closed loop, simple supply chain large volume single items, e.g. dough for Domino’s or buns for McDonald’s situations in which back hauling can be adopted.

Water: This resource attracts the least attention in the food service sector, and attention is focused on non-kitchen activities, such as use in hotel guest rooms, etc. There is a significant opportunity to raise awareness of water use in catering, focusing on dishwashers, macerators/SDUs, spray nozzles, running taps etc. Quantifying and communicating the hidden cost of water usage is a recommended first step.

The importance of SMEs: Larger food service businesses have made most of the quick-wins, for example, in energy saving, with further improvements now reliant on greater investment in new technologies or techniques. However, the sector is composed largely of SMEs such as cafés, themselves often supplied by small businesses. Moreover, SMEs cannot always exploit economies of scale in purchasing, and are usually forced to rely on local authorities for waste management. An opportunity therefore exists to help SMEs drive further significant gains, although this assumes that resource efficiency measures can be disseminated and behaviours changed across the food service and hospitality sector.

Technology: Food service is innovative, with new technologies frequently emerging to improve resource efficiency. Developments in packaging include: steam valve technologies, which help reduce production lead times while maintaining product quality; modified atmosphere packaging to increase product shelf-life; and oven-ready paper trays for ready-meals. Product innovations also enable a wider range of meals to be cooked from frozen in the microwave or conventional oven. Further work is required to determine whether change is found primarily in large organisations or whether the whole sector is moving at the same pace, and also to address the public response to new technologies in terms of perceptions of healthiness and freshness. The cost/benefit analysis undertaken in this study shows that most energy or water efficient equipment has a payback of less than two years, and a typical life expectancy of five to twenty years. Given the high failure rate of food service businesses in the current economic climate, further work on the benefits of leasing equipment, rather than purchasing it, would develop best practice in this area.

Resource efficiency progress is under way: The food service sector has reduced its resource use in recent years; cost saving has been the key driver, although the CSR agenda has also shaped business decisions of larger organisations. Efforts to improve resource efficiency are evident across all sub-sectors, with energy efficiency the main focus. More support for SMEs and an emphasis on waste prevention and water efficiency is needed.

Skills base: Low skills, low pay and high staff turnover have, historically, been characteristic of the sector and there is general agreement that appropriate and structured training would help to drive the behavioural change necessary for increased sustainability. Training that acknowledges sustainable catering would be very beneficial to the sector, allowing early appreciation of the issues involved and hopefully a retention of this appreciation throughout a person’s career.

Achieving change: The voluntary agreement approach (e.g. Hospitality and Food Service Agreement, Federation House Commitment, Courtauld Commitment, etc.) is considered by stakeholders to be a better approach to resource efficiency in the sector than the imposition of blanket regulation, since voluntary initiatives can be tailored to individual sites. For some companies, achieving targets will be more challenging, especially for those contract caterers with limited ability to monitor and control resource use in a client’s premises. Government is itself a significant procurer of food services, typically via numerous ‘cost sector’ outlets (e.g. hospitals, prisons, defence, offices, etc.), and is thus well-placed to drive change2. An opportunity exists to revise Government Buying Standards to encompass the best-performing catering equipment, perhaps through new specifications for “resource efficient equipment”. Meanwhile, local authorities are developing commercial waste management collection systems, which SMEs view as a step forward in diverting waste from landfill.

Data limitations: The availability of research on the sector is varied in quality and coverage; this report identified the gaps in this coverage and suggests, in the section that follows, the areas for future research.

2 Further work is suggested to research the degree of horizontal adoption of best practice in large public sector organisations


Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of

the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).


1. Aims and objectivesIn July 2010, Defra published its Structural Reform Plan outlining the priorities to help ensure that the UK food industry is competitive and achieves sustainable growth. Under the plan, emphasis was placed on the importance of the entire food and drink supply chain becoming resource efficient in its use of water, energy, food and other raw materials. Anecdotal evidence suggested that the food service sector was not as resource efficient as other sectors in the food chain, and that there is a lack of published evidence related to resource efficiency in this sector.

Defra is therefore considering how best to engage with the food service sector with the objective of ensuring that: the industry plays a full role in the drive to improve resource efficiency in the food and drink supply chain sustainable behaviours become properly embedded in day-to-day operations industry leaders, including trade associations, demonstrate commitment to the action to become more resource

efficient effective partnership-working is established businesses can point to measurable and cost-effective resource efficiency gains.

The aims of this research are to: Establish available data and information on resource use within the hospitality and food service (HaFS) supply

chain to inform development of benchmarks to enable monitoring of progress. Identify current resource efficiency practices in the sector with regard to water, energy and raw materials. Identify areas of particular difficulty or where best practice action to improve resource efficiency is limited

(‘hotspots’). This includes particular aspects of resource efficiency or particular parts of the sector, or both. Identify opportunities where the sector needs support to be more resource efficient and how this might be

achieved.

2. Meeting the objectivesIt is anticipated that the information provided within this report will help engagement between Defra policy makers, key stakeholders (industry, trade associations and WRAP, etc.), and the Devolved Administrations in their efforts to assist the food service sector and supply chain to drive up resource efficiency. It will also complement WRAP’s activity within the HaFS sector in the delivery of the voluntary agreement on food waste reduction and increased recycling. In addition, the Federation House Commitment - delivered jointly by WRAP and the Food and Drink Federation - is helping food and drink manufacturers to improve water efficiency.

3. MethodologyThis report reviewed available literature relating to resource use in the food service industry, ensuring content was as robust, reliable and up-to-date as possible. Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (industry, trade associations etc.) were used to identify areas for further research, to gain an understanding of the real issues in the industry first-hand, and to sense-check published literature conclusions.

4. Data limitationsThe availability of research on the sector is varied in quality and coverage. The table below highlights the main data gaps. The analysis shows that there is good data coverage on the profiles of each sub-sector with regard to waste but there is scant data on energy and water usage. There is a clear data gap regarding SME engagement by sub-sector, as much of the literature identified takes a generic approach across the whole sector. Similarly, data on technology is patchy as product and process innovation do not tend to be sub-sector specific.

Table 4.1 Data coverage by sub-sector and waste typeSub-sectors Sector

profileWaste data

Energy data

Water data

Technology Bench-marking

SME engagement

Examples of good practice

Restaurants *** *** * *QSR *** *** ** * **Pubs *** *** *Hotels *** *** ** ** * *Leisure ** ***Staff Catering ** *** * *Health Care *** *** ** * ** **Education *** *** ** * *Services *** *** ** *

Source: Oakdene HollinsKey: *** = excellent coverage; ** = good coverage; * = limited coverage; (no *) = little or no coverage

5. Main report findings


5.1 Sub-sector profileThere are an estimated 420,000 outlets in the UK, with the market fairly evenly segmented (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Percentage of outlets per food service sub-sector, 2011

Source: Horizons 20123

SMEs form a large part of the industry, particularly in the profit sector where 77% of organisations employ fewer than 10 people4. In 2011, 1.5 million people were employed in the food service industry, with many of the jobs requiring low levels of skill and therefore attracting low salaries. Staff turnover in many establishments can be high.

The supply chain structure in the hospitality and food service sector is varied and often complex, although steps are being taken to simplify. The catering market is predominantly supplied in two ways; either direct from a supplier, or through an intermediary/ wholesaler. Currently, over half of all food sold to food service operators is delivered via wholesalers. Smaller outlets - such as independent pubs, restaurants and hotels - may purchase items delivered from national or regional wholesalers but, given their small size and flexibility, they are equally likely to source from regional SME producers. With the exception of a few large businesses, many suppliers of the food service sector are, ultimately, SMEs. Often these small companies will supply the large food service operators, delivering to their regional warehouses.

The major policy publication affecting the purchasing of public sector food in the UK is the Government Buying Standards (GBS) for food and catering services5. The GBS is the UK Government’s implementation of the EU Green Public Procurement policy, and it came into force in September 2011. It is mandatory for all Central Government departments and Executive Agencies, and forms the basis on which contract caterers tender to, and work with, the public sector. This is a key publication and constructs the purchasing protocol within most of the cost sector; namely, health care, education and services.

Food service kitchens vary enormously in terms of complexity and function, from a very basic set-up in which ready-meals are simply reheated, to large kitchens where all meals are prepared from their raw ingredients using a full range of cooking methods. Table 5.1 (over) illustrates the main stages involved for the four main supply chain systems found on this continuum. There are noticeable differences depending on whether food is prepared on the site where it will be served to the customer, or prepared in a central facility and then sent out to multiple satellite locations in ready-to-heat or serve format.

5.2 Energy Energy consumption for catering-related activities has fallen by 8.6% from 2006 to 20106, yet a comparison of data from 2000 and 2010 shows the contribution of catering activities to overall energy consumption in the UK remained at 10%7. Heating and lighting are the largest end uses of energy for all sub-sectors. There is a lack of robust data relating to energy use in all sub-sectors; particularly in the profit sub-sectors, where only a single study from 1990 gives any meaningful findings. The sparse data that do exist indicate that end energy consumption varies considerably by sub-sector; for example, cooking/catering contributes 13% to a hospital’s overall energy use, 20% to a pub’s, 40% to a restaurant’s, and 70% to a QSR’s overall usage, depending on the sub-sector’s primary function.

Table 5.1 Flow of products in food service production systemConventional Ready-prepared (cook Assembly-serve Centralised

3 Horizons (2012) UK Food service Industry in 20114 Defra (2010) Environmental Impacts of the Food Service Sector5 http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/GBS-guidance-food.pdf 6 Secondary analysis of data from the Digest of UK Energy Statistics and Building Research Establishment7 Energy consumption in the UK, DECC


http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/GBS-guidance-food.pdf

Procurement of ingredients

Preparation on site

Heating

Hot holding

Meal portion & assembly

Hot holding and distribution

Service

Procurement of ingredients

Preparation at central facility

Transport to customer

Chilling/freezing

Portioning & assembly

Cold holding

Reheating

Service

Procurement as ready-meal – no production

Refrigerate or freeze

Thaw

Portioning & assembly

Reheating

Service

Procurement – part ingredients, part

assembled

Pre-processing

Production

Hold frozen/heated/chilled

Transport in bulk or portions to satellites

Reheating

Service

Source: Oakdene Hollins, adapted from Puckett, 20048

5.3 Waste The hospitality and food service sector produces 2.87 million tonnes of waste per year, with packaging waste the largest element (1.3 million tonnes), followed by food waste (0.92 million tonnes), and other wastes such as office paper, disposable cups and paper towels (0.66 million tonnes). Most of the sector’s waste is not currently recovered through material recycling or composting/anaerobic digestion. The overall recycling/composting rate, by weight, is estimated to be 46% (12% for food waste and 62% for packaging/other wastes). More food waste is currently disposed of down the drain via sink disposal units (SDUs - 0.14 million tonnes) than is sent to composting/AD (0.11 million tonnes) 9.

As shown in Figure 5.2, the management of food waste differs by sub-sector, with use of SDUs featuring highly in services, healthcare and staff catering, for example.

Figure 5.2 Management of food waste by sub-sector (% weight)

Source: WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry

Restaurants produce the largest tonnage of waste in the UK, shown in Figure 5.3; four sub-sectors (restaurants, pubs, healthcare and education) each produce more than 100,000 tonnes of food waste per year but differ in the extent to which the food waste is ‘avoidable’.

Figure 5.3 Hospitality waste arising (tonnes/year) by sub-sector and type of waste: ranked from largest to smallest waste producer

8 Puckett, R.P. (2004) Food service Manual for Health Care Institutions San Francisco: Jossey-Bass9 WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry


Source: WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry

5.3.1 Waste in restaurantsSmaller restaurants often face challenges in managing and reducing waste, perhaps as a result of workers giving waste prevention little priority, the complex nature of the waste, and a lack of co-operation from suppliers who do not function as part of a sustainable supply chain. Food provenance has instead emerged as a greater issue for restaurants, with wholesome, local food taking on a high importance with customers.

Although not the largest in terms of meals served or number of outlets, the restaurant sector produces the most waste at 915,400 tonnes (Figure 5.3). Reasons for this include: Restaurants often prepare meals on site from chilled or fresh ingredients and so have higher levels of

preparation waste. Restaurants offer full meals, rather than predominantly snacks and breakfasts, so food volumes will be higher. Many restaurants serve large portions, in line with their unique selling proposition, and so have greater levels of

plate waste. The impact of waste is sometimes not as noticeable, as profit margins on food are higher than in other sectors.

Food waste accounts for 22% by weight of the total waste arisings from the restaurant sector, with packaging at 55% and ‘other’ at 23%10. As nearly three-quarters of the food waste is deemed avoidable waste, restaurants should be encouraged to concentrate on reducing this waste – such as plate waste – first. Packaging waste is predominantly clear/green glass (58.9% by volume) and cardboard (17.5%). Packaging waste has already been a focus in the food industry, resulting in light weighting of bottles and alternative materials and designs. Cardboard waste can also be cut by using more effective design and better construction.

Food in restaurants often requires greater levels of on-site preparation. Food waste may be higher in restaurants as a result, but will be lower with suppliers who do not have to prepare the item themselves – a case of considering the whole-life cost of a product. A centralised system nevertheless may have the advantage that all wastes arise on one site and can therefore be more efficiently managed.

5.3.2 Waste in Quick Service RestaurantsWaste arisings in QSRs are low compared to those in other sub-sectors, even though QSRs serve the largest number of meals of all the sub-sectors. A key reason for this is that much of the food is supplied in ready-to-cook format; food preparation is undertaken prior to delivery to the food service outlets. The total mixed waste arisings for QSRs in 2012 was 163,400 tonnes; however, nearly half of this was food waste. Paper accounts for 30.3% and card 24.9% by volume of packaging waste, much of which is presumed to be secondary packaging. In comparison to pubs and restaurants, glass does not predominate for QSRs, as fewer glass-bottled drinks are served.

5.3.3 Waste in pubsCorporate social responsibility seems to be taken seriously by most of the largest companies, with CSR reports and achievements highlighted on company websites. The cost saving opportunity of waste reduction is well understood in the pub sector but there appears to be little strategic focus on how to achieve it. According to the 2013 WRAP

10 WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry (all similar data in the following sub-sectors also originate from this report)


report, packaging is again the predominant waste type, at 461,000 tonnes or 53% of the total 873,800 tonnes produced. As would be expected in the pub industry, clear glass bottles are the largest waste stream, accounting for 68.8% of packaging waste arisings by volume. This includes spirits and soft drinks containers, along with a lower level of bottled water and beer bottles. Many of the major beverage brands have made significant reductions in the weight of glass in bottles. Continuing this trend can have a substantial effect on waste arisings within the pub sector, given the dominance of this packaging.

5.3.4 Waste in hotelsThe total waste arising from the hotel sector in 2012 was 289,654 tonnes, the largest component of which was packaging waste (45%). Clear glass accounts for the greatest waste packaging by weight. The clear glass is largely comprised of wine, spirit and beer bottles, but bottled water will sometimes be responsible for much of the waste glass, especially where a hotel has conference facilities. An alternative system is to use refillable bottles - typically in decline in the UK, but nevertheless used by several large hotel chains such as the Radisson Edwardian Hotel Group.

5.3.5 Waste in leisure establishmentsWRAP’s 2013 report sampled a number of leisure outlets to understand better the nature of the overall 114,135 tonnes of waste present. It found that the split of type of catering was 60% restaurant-/pub-style food and 40% QSR-/café-style. Most outlets (70% of the sample) were run independently, with 30% run by contract caterers and 10% through other arrangements such as franchises. The report concluded that 14.6% of food waste and 38.8% of packaging and other wastes was recycled by leisure outlets, giving an overall recycling level of 26.1%11. Unlike most other sub-sectors, leisure has more food waste (52%) than packaging waste (25%) with other wastes making up the remainder. The leisure sector’s packaging recycling rates is 38.8%, with paper and card the largest categories. As leisure sites are operated by a wide variety of organisations including local authorities, private companies and contract caterers, generalisations about the sector are inadvisable. Case studies are therefore useful to show some of the challenges faced by the leisure sector.

5.3.6 Waste in staff catering Staff catering ranges from a single meal served to a small number of employees, to major catering operations across multiple sites feeding hundreds. Packaging is the largest waste at 48% by weight. The way employees are fed in staff catering is diverse and the causes of waste are accordingly complex.

In staff catering canteens, food preparation from raw ingredients is still largely carried out on site using the full range of cooking methods; few instances are seen of the procurement of pre-prepared meals with the resource efficiencies this could offer. As a result, 26.8% (by weight) of food waste is unavoidable (from peelings/bones etc.), this being a relatively high percentage compared with other sub-sectors. 18% of food waste and 51% of packaging and other wastes are recycled, giving an overall recycling rate of 38%. Unlike for some of the other profit sub-sectors, a detailed packaging breakdown is not available for the staff catering sub-sector.

5.3.7 Waste in healthcareWRAP research on waste arisings shows that over 170,200 tonnes of food and related packaging waste arise in the UK healthcare sub-sector. Unlike many other sub-sectors, food waste far outweighs packaging waste at healthcare providers. Of the food waste, 80% is avoidable. Only 4% of food waste is recycled as are 14% of packaging and other wastes, giving a total recycling rate of just 7%. Reasons for this include: the large scale of some hospital healthcare catering operations difficulties in monitoring waste directly, given the high priority of clinical waste management inability of catering functions to operate recycling if the wider clinical site does not do so high proportion of food waste via SDUs for reasons of hygiene and convenience.

Catering for a large and fluctuating patient population is a complex logistical task and the most successful waste prevention efforts largely focus on matching supply with demand. With a growing demand for 24-hour access to food, hospitals face challenges in the way they supply patient meals. Inappropriate length and timing of meals, inability to select food as close as possible to mealtimes, and disturbances during mealtimes (e.g. rounds by medical personnel) all result in a high incidence of untouched patient meals. Solutions include pre-selection of meals, use of ‘protected’ mealtimes, use of food monitoring systems and new technology to allow meals to be heated on wards when needed. Steam-valve technology, for example, when used together with monitoring systems (e.g. Trim Trax), appears to offer a way of lowering food waste in the health sector which is potentially acceptable to the public. More research would be needed to explore this potential further, however.

5.3.8 Waste in educationEducation catering is highly varied, with complexity increasing from primary, through secondary, to higher and further education establishments. Whilst demand forecasting at primary school level is relatively straightforward, it becomes increasingly challenging at post-secondary education level due to larger site operations and fluctuating customer numbers. Food waste dominates the weight of waste in the education sub-sector as a whole, partly because much

11 WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry


of the meal preparation is done off site. Issues centre on demand forecasting (predicting uptake of meals) and ‘healthy’ eating requirements (such as the recent demand for local authority-maintained primary and secondary schools in the UK to offer students certain healthier options, which may result in large volumes of wasted ‘avoidable’ items such as fruit and vegetables).

5.3.9 Waste in servicesEvidence from the WRAP 2013 report suggests that traditional catering, with meals prepared from scratch by skilled staff, rather than procurement of pre-prepared meals, is still the norm in the services sub-sector. This results in large weights of food waste (81%) compared to packaging waste (15%). It is difficult to provide a broad overview of the sub-sector, given the wide variety of outlets, and it is perhaps more useful to look at case studies and best practice within individual establishments.

6. Water No data could be found on the total quantity of water consumed in the food service sector. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reducing water consumption has been a low priority for businesses in the UK. In the stakeholder interviews undertaken for this research, it was apparent that the focus of many organisations was on waste and energy, with few targeting water. There is a data gap on water in restaurants, QSRs, pubs, leisure, staff catering, healthcare and education. For hotels, a small body of evidence suggests kitchens in hotels appear to use a high proportion of overall water usage (21%), second only to guest rooms (38%). In services, the MOD’s annual report ‘Greening Government Commitments 2011-12’ states the total MOD water use at 24,659,000m3. The aim is reduce water use across the whole estate by 7% by 2014-15, principally using ‘spend to save’ improvements at 23 sites with high water consumption. In 2009-10, these improvements required investment of £80,000 and resulted in a demand reduction of 140,000m3, saving over £400,000 per year. The average payback time on the investment was two months, encouraging further investment in more sites over the following years. Most of this investment was in flush units and plumbing improvements, with tap replacement (using restricted flow taps) being the only measure that may have had an impact on the food service part of the MOD. On such large and complex sites, water use is far more costly in non-food service areas, and thus attracts a greater focus.

7. Greenhouse gasMuch variation can be seen across the sub-sectors and Figure 7.1 shows the variation when the number of meals per outlet is taken into consideration. The healthcare sub-sector has an extremely high environmental impact when compared against the other sub-sectors, for example.

Figure 7.1 A comparison of environmental impacts by sub-sector

Source: Adapted from WRAP 2010 and Horizons 2010 by Oakdene Hollins (r²=0.085 = coefficient of determination)

Figure 7.2 shows a breakdown of the overall eating out market with total estimated emissions of 13,751 ktCO2e/year. Unlike the energy analysis, which showed cooking to account for less than one-quarter of overall consumption, this shows the cooking function to account for nearly one-third (32%).

Figure 7.2 Greenhouse gas emissions from processing, distribution and retail consumption in the UK ‘eating out’


market – after the regional distribution centre


Source: How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system end and the scope to reduce them by 2050. Cranfield University.

8. A review of current practiceThe use of resources by individual sub-sectors is discussed within the sub-sector categories above; however, the following sections consider individual operational level consumption, and the specific activities that are carried out within the sector.

8.1 Energy current practiceTable 8.1 shows that cooking is the overall highest energy consuming activity within the food service sector.

Table 8.1 Energy consuming activities by sub-sector, per outletSub-sector Tonnes CO2e per year

Cold Storage Heated storage Cooking Lighting Other TotalBusiness and Industry 12 3 28 3 18 64Healthcare 57 79 57 7 34 234Pubs 24 5 20 16 37 102QSR 7 3 17 4 16 47Restaurant 13 5 36 6 19 79Schools 10 7 13 2 4 36Total 123 102 171 38 128 562

Source: Defra (2010) Environmental impacts of the food service sector

Across all sectors, cooking is the greatest energy-consuming activity, and this is consistent across all sub-sectors except healthcare. Schools consume the lowest energy for food production of all the sub-sectors. However, when considering the number of meals served (covers) per outlet, QSRs – which produce an average of over 63,000 covers per outlet, in comparison to 33,000 at schools - therefore have a lower energy consumption per cover (0.74kgCO2e per cover at QSRs vs 1.08kgCO2e per cover in schools). Equipment used varies by site, but there are some general considerations when selecting appliances. The Catering Equipment Suppliers Association (CESA) advises catering managers to see kitchens as whole systems, and consider what functions are required, rather than what equipment. The full technical version of this report details the operational and equipment considerations for food service sub-sectors, as well as typical cooking equipment in commercial kitchens, and associated energy considerations.

8.1.1 RefrigerationRefrigeration is a major energy contributor and efficiency centres on the type of unit used, namely; Integral: containing a complete system within the appliance. Heat is removed from the refrigerated space and

discharged to surrounding atmosphere. Remote: containing the evaporator within the system, but cooling unit located elsewhere – usually on the side or

roof of the building.


The systems have benefits and disadvantages; the key disadvantage being that an integral system needs to have an external regulator of atmosphere (e.g. air conditioning or ventilation) so as not to heat the appliance, thus reducing the efficiency. A remote system discharges heat away from the unit but, by design, requires a larger cooling system around which to circulate refrigerant. Both refrigeration types can be either air- or water-cooled, and the efficiencies of these depend on the individual specifications of the site –such as space available, closeness to ventilation, and air supply.

Staff behaviour can also affect refrigerator efficiencies; ensuring doors are opened as little as possible, that units are cleaned thoroughly (including condensers and evaporators) at frequent intervals, and that the settings are correct and checked frequently, are all means of assisting units to run at their optimum .

8.1.2 CookingCooking efficiency depends on the style of food preparation; one often-stated barrier to energy efficiency is the requirement to ‘turn on and turn off’ equipment each time it is being used, which (while saving energy) is sometimes impractical or simply easily overlooked in busy kitchens. One means of overcoming this without requiring significant behavioural change is to improve equipment by means of automatic shut-down functions, heated storage facilities and/or more efficient beverage makers.

Metering is key to energy- efficient practice. Knowing the amount being used is critical to understanding the hotspot areas, and therefore to setting realistic targets for improved resource consumption. Energy monitoring is one of the first steps to take in order to know which equipment is most energy-hungry, where obvious savings can be made and, potentially, where problems with equipment may cause higher than typical usage. Energy meters are becoming more affordable; prices depend on application, but are typically around £300 for purchase and installation. Once installed, readings can be taken every half hour to highlight peaks of usage and potentially wasted energy when equipment is not needed.

8.2 Waste current practiceAlthough much progress has already been made on waste disposal, only an average of 49% of waste arisings in hotels, restaurants, QSRs and pubs is currently re-used, recycled or composted which suggests that the food service and hospitality profit sector is behind many industries in regarding raw materials as a valuable resource. Those businesses that are tackling the problem are placing their emphasis on landfill diversion rather than prevention of waste at source, for example through better demand forecasting. However, a few larger companies with the necessary financial resources are now investing in effective solutions.

The three root causes of food waste in food service sites are spoilage waste (food not used before use-by date), preparation waste and customer plate waste. They apply to all sub-sectors, albeit in varying ratios. Spoilage is best minimised through proper stock rotation, accurate forecasting and sensible stock ordering. This is critical to reduce the level of spoilage from oversupply of perishable items, and electronic systems can assist in ensuring demands are met, without losing sales due to lack of stock. Where fresh food is needed, the use of seasonal, local vegetables and fruit is to be considered. This reduces the carbon impact of food miles, but also results in less time travelled, therefore often allowing produce still to be very fresh when it arrives at the site. However, there is a trade-off between minimising transport costs and minimising food waste: a reduction in the number of deliveries to a site may increase food waste, but is outweighed by the savings in distribution.

Preparation waste can be avoidable (i.e. unused ingredients) or unavoidable (i.e. non-edible wastes such as bones). Over £12.9 billion was spent on food and drink purchases by the food service sector in 2010, leading to sales of almost £42 billion. The ingredients used in food production can have a significant influence on efficiency of production and waste arisings. The sourcing of ingredients affects the processing required, packaging needed (and ultimately disposed of) and efficiencies of transportation. Production of a menu that considers all these aspects can result in a higher efficiency kitchen, offering potential financial savings: The menu is a driver for many operational decisions.

There are several means to reduce preparation waste, although it is important to consider the whole supply chain and ensure that minimisation techniques are not simply pushing the waste to a different part of the supply chain. For example, pre-prepared food causes minimal waste arisings at the point of regeneration, but may be associated with far higher levels of waste at the site of manufacture. Pre-preparation and simplification of tasks, traditionally a preserve of QSRs, is increasingly to be found in cost sector situations, notably in hospitals. With cost and budgetary considerations carrying ever-greater importance, it is vital that any method of reducing waste, and therefore cost, is factored into the menu planning process. Centralised (or commissary) food service systems can reduce preparation waste, along with food costs and labour due to economies of scale. Food is prepared in a central kitchen, often from raw rather than pre-prepared ingredients, and distributed to ‘satellite’ kitchens for serving, most often when food needs to be produced in bulk. There can be many benefits to centralised food service, some of which include: reduced requirements for equipment at satellite kitchens reduced food waste by amassing waste in a central location for easier management


lower food and supply costs improved ingredient and quality control better use of production facilities lower labour costs flexible scheduling of food preparation.

Plate waste is the waste remaining on a customer’s plate once returned to the kitchen, regardless of composition. The reason for plate waste varies between type of outlet, and management practices should reflect this. Over-serve and poor quality food are among the more significant factors to consider. The table below shows ways of reducing plate waste by sub-sector:

Table 8.2 Means of reducing plate waste by outlet typeSub-sector Ways of reducing plate wasteRestaurant Portion control

Menu planningQSR Avoid offering larger portionsBusiness and industry Manage buffet portions and avoid overproductionHealthcare Reduced order lead time and personalised pre-ordering by patients

Staff training and assistance with eating given to patientsPortion control

Pubs Portion control Menu planning

Schools Time planning (ensure play break is before, not after, lunch for example)12 Tailored portioning (smaller children eat less)

An important step in minimising food waste is having a system in place to measure food waste volumes. Food waste at various stages of the process can be collected, including preparation waste, prepared but unserved food waste, and plate scrapings. The data collected can be used for improving menu planning, tackling over-portioning and improving demand forecasting, as well as for motivating and training staff. Of critical importance to waste monitoring is the widespread practice of flushing food waste - especially waste liquids, peelings and plate scrapings - into the drainage system via sink disposal units (SDUs).

8.2.1 Packaging waste: profit sectorThe priority recycling materials for each profit sub-sector differ slightly from each other although, overall, glass is dominant, followed by card:

Table 8.3 Priority recycling materials (profit sector)

Source: WRAP 2013

Readily recyclables include paper, card, drinks cartons, glass, metal and plastic bottles as these are the items that are most convenient and cost-effective for an organisation to recycle. Non-readily recyclable materials include dense plastic, plastic film, certain metals. As glass tonnages are high in the profit sector, major Initiatives to reduce the weight of glass waste being generated include: Lightweighting. Examples come from leading drinks manufacturers Britvic and Diageo. A light-weighting

initiative in 2009 resulted in Britvic reducing the weight of its 275ml J2O bottle by 10%, down from 200g to 180g. The company said that the weight reduction programme will save about 4,000 tonnes of glass per year, the equivalent of 20 million bottles at current production levels.

12 Wasted Food ‘Lunchlady laments’ www.wastedfood.com/2007/05/22/recess/


Re-usable/returnable packaging. The pub sector is well known for its use of returnable packaging with draught kegs and casks accounting for over 90% of beer and lager sales in the on-trade sector. Meanwhile returnable bottles have all but vanished, mainly because of the increased complexity of supply chains, high volume centralised production, concerns over health and safety, and the higher profile of brand image.

Concentrates. ‘Post mix’ is a means of reducing packaging waste. Coca Cola reports13 that its Coca Cola 7 litre post-mix has a dilution ratio of 5.4:1, producing 44.8 litres, and its Schweppes lemonade has a dilution ratio of 7.5:1, producing 59.5 litres.

Material substitution. Alternative packaging formats are now on the market, such as the ‘bag-in-box’, which is a popular means of selling wine by the glass. The Smirnoff Mojito bag-in-box system is reported to be a simple, convenient solution allowing bars to serve high quality cocktails. The solution is an easy ‘plug-n-play’ system for bars, not requiring any technical expertise in draught systems or cocktails.

Board packaging accounts for the majority of total card waste, and pubs and restaurants generate 65% of total card packaging. Board packaging is the most common secondary/transit packaging used within the sector. Initiatives to reduce card packaging centre around: Returnable transit packaging (RTP) and backhaul. However, complex supply chains and limited space

availability in many outlets may block the uptake of RTP within the food service sector. Alternative packaging. Lightweight foil or plastic pouches are becoming an attractive alternative packaging

format, replacing glass jars, metal cans and plastic bottles. Sometimes a trade-off exists between reducing food waste and minimising packaging. For instance, many food service businesses offer condiments in single-use, non-recyclable sachets. Although packaging waste rises, the sachets ration condiment use, reducing the amount left uneaten on plates.

8.2.2 Packaging waste: cost sectorThe cost sector (healthcare, services, leisure, education and staff catering) generally recycles less than the profit sector. This is largely because the profit sector (especially pubs and restaurants) can easily recycle large amounts of glass packaging. However, the cost sector has a higher percentage of non-readily recyclable packaging/other wastes, which complicates waste management efforts. The cost sector currently sends a significant amount of readily recyclable material to landfill. Key areas for improvement are in cardboard, metal cans and bottles:

Table 8.4 Priority recycling materials (cost sector)

Source: WRAP 2013

Many of the challenges to reducing packaging waste, discussed above for the profit sector, are also in evidence in the cost sector.

8.3 Water current practiceWater use in the food service sector is largely related to ware-washing (glass and dish), processing (thawing, steaming etc.), general cleaning/rinsing, and in-product water.

There has not been the same focus on saving water as there is on other resources because of the lower costs involved, but more organisations are beginning to focus on water conservation. The use of water in-process - if heated or cooled, for example - also has a direct relation to energy use, and therefore the efficient use of water can simultaneously affect energy consumption. Water use by activity varies between sites, depending on outlet size, number of covers, and staff behaviour. Several items of equipment are critical when attempting to reduce water use, such as dishwashers, steamers, combi-ovens, water cooled condensers, pre-rinse spray valves, taps and SDUs.

13 http://www.cokepubandbar.co.uk/lic_equipment_dilution.html


The most efficient models for all these pieces of equipment are now incorporating water reduction into their design.

8.4 Reduction and recovery practicesThe food service sector has seen substantial progress in the reduction of resource use in recent years, with CSR and environmental considerations becoming a stronger influence in business decisions. Across all sub-sectors there are examples of efforts made in each resource area, with energy and waste generally gaining the most attention. Supply chain engagement, maximising the use of transport fleets, environmental management systems and driving efficiency through purchasing decisions are all methods that the sector is currently using to reduce resource use.

8.5 SMEsSMEs are an important part of the food service sector and face a unique set of challenges, ranging from lack of access to suitable recycling facilities, to issues of storing waste onsite to be collected in bulk at a later date14. In response to criticism from the small business community, the Government is working to improve the experience and access of SMEs to cost-effective recycling services15.

Evidence suggests that SMEs regard energy reduction as less important to their business than do larger organisations16. However, it may be that the take-up of low- or no-cost efficiency measures by SMEs is often under-reported. The owner of a small business working on his/her own premises will be highly motivated to reduce costs, and as a result will continuously seek to make improvements that will increase profitability: as resource efficiency measures most often mean a reduction in costs, this is where many SMEs are improving, yet they are not measured in any official surveys and are sometimes ignored. Whatever the true situation, it is clear that simply installing smart meters will have a significant impact on energy use, at any size of business.

SMEs have limited funds to invest in highly advanced water-efficient equipment, and are unlikely to be able to compete with the water efficiency of large organisations. However, there are many behavioural opportunities for maximising water efficiency. For example, ware-washing is still a key water-consuming activity, and ensuring dish- or glass-washers are operating full will reduce water consumption per item. Defrosting food in sinks under running taps should be minimised, and careful management of food stocks can help prevent the need for ‘last minute’ defrosting. WRAP’s ‘Rippleffect’ programme provides businesses with guidance and support to help reduce water use and is relevant to small businesses. It includes support to: understand how much water the business uses identify simple ways to start saving water and money measure the water and cost savings that have been made learn about 'quick win' water-saving devices.

8.6 BenchmarkingBenchmarking is the process of comparing one set of data with a standard set of data (the benchmark), typically in order to improve a particular aspect or process of a business. It is used as a sector guide for individual sites to compare themselves to other sites in the industry. Due to the heterogeneity of the food service sector, however, benchmarking across sites has limited use, as few comparisons are like-for-like. There are other ways of using benchmarking as a tool for improved practice, and three approaches are considered below:

1. Benchmarking against the ‘typical’ site in the sub-sector.2. Benchmarking by activity.3. Benchmarking against own practice (temporarily).

Option 1 is not suitable for the whole sector, because of sector variations. For example, the average water consumption per site will vary hugely from a hotel serving 200 people daily to a café serving 20. Even if averaged per cover, the efficiencies available are not necessarily comparable, as type of service, product type, size of venue, level of preparation, geographic location, and many other factors are all variable. An improved - but not ideal - approach is to benchmark by venue type (for example, the type of restaurant, or specific style of hotel) although, even at this level, sites are not fully comparable. This guidance can offer some understanding to stakeholders, and becomes more relevant the more specific the sub-sector category reviewed.

Benchmarking by activity allows for ‘normalised’ functional units, as specific tasks are likely to be more comparable than overall activity of a site. For example, the CSFG17 provides data on cooking energy efficiency by type of appliance, along with the typical hourly consumption, which can assist caterers in selecting what equipment to use for an energy-efficient kitchen. Other possibilities occur for ‘loads’ for dishwashing, ‘energy consumption’ for storage of food or other practices generic to most in the sector, as these aspects are less variable by site.

14 Federation of Small Businesses. The waste review – the small business case.15 WRAP, accessed at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/business-recycling-and-waste-services-commitment-116 BMG Research (2012) Response to the Green Deal – Research among the business community17 Catering for Sustainable Futures Group, in conjunction with Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) http://www.cibse.org/


http://www.cibse.org/

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/business-recycling-and-waste-services-commitment-1

Option 3 also allows efficiency improvements to be made on site. Once resource use starts to be measured, organisations can then set efficiency targets against own practice. These may be for individual outlets or for entire chains. By benchmarking own facilities, a clearer picture of what is achievable can be developed, as well as providing an evidence base for quantified improvements to be presented to customers or stakeholders.

Benchmark data are available for many aspects of food service (as highlighted in the previous sections documenting energy, water and waste per sub-sector) and companies can compare themselves on these scales to assess relative performance. However, the variety in the food service sector is so wide that the comparisons are not always like-for-like and so benchmark data should be used as guidance only.

9. TechnologyThe UK food service sector purchases just over £1 billion-worth of equipment, spares and services from suppliers every year. Equipment accounted for £694 million in 2006, while spares (which include accessories such as hoses) and services accounted for the remaining £307 million18. Efficient energy and water use is becoming the norm for new equipment, and manufacturers are striving to achieve better levels.

Energy and water efficiencies of typical kitchen equipment have been improving recently, driven by manufacturers, consumers and the cost of utilities, as well as an increased focus on CSR factors. The most advanced equipment can offer significant on-going savings in running costs and maintenance requirements. Not all technological advances are only available when buying new. Where equipment does not need replacing, retrofitting of control technology is advisable. This can include automatic on-off switches, pan sensors for hobs, and other ‘smart’ controls for equipment, which can either adjust settings, or allow for more increments, to only use energy required.

9.1 Technological advancesMuch focus has been placed on achieving greater efficiencies on site, and allowing improved cooking processes and waste management without requiring transportation on- and/or off-site. The equipment used has a significant effect on resource consumption, and technology is improving continually – not only through advancement of engineering and mechanical capabilities, but also through proven technologies that have taken time to become accepted and adopted. These include: Food shelf-life extension - Modified atmosphere packaging is a way of extending the shelf-life of fresh food

products. The atmospheric air inside a package is substituted with a protective gas mix, allowing food to stay fresher for longer without the use of preservatives. Another innovation is ultrafiltration of milk, where milk is passed under pressure through a thin, porous membrane to separate its constituents according to their size. The product is used in a variety of food processes, such as cheese-making. The efficiency gains result from concentrating the product or reducing its volume which leads to lower transport costs.

Cooking technologies – Sous-vide technology is increasingly used in kitchens. Food is prepared and sealed in bags after the removal of air. Lack of air allows for efficient re-heat of the bags, as heat is directly transferred to the food and not lost to surrounding atmosphere. Steam valve technology is also an innovative way of cooking efficiently. Using steam to cook food with very little equipment, the meal is ready in just four to six minutes. Each meal is cooked in packaging that contains a patented steam-release valve - described as being similar to a mini pressure cooker - that regulates temperature throughout the cooking process. This technology is currently being used in several NHS Trusts, and the manufacturers say reductions in energy use of up to 40% can be realised, along with fewer transport deliveries and less waste through better demand forecasting. Oven-proof paper trays are also a new innovation; a fibre-based package, with wood sourced from responsibly managed forests, they are seen as preferable to high-impact aluminium or plastic-based oven trays.

Ordering and communication technology – Evidence suggests19 that for larger concerns, in the cost sector especially, a lack of communication between different parts of the same organisation will often result in unnecessary food waste. This problem is normally most acute in the largest organisations where fluctuations in customer numbers are hidden from the catering staff. Electronic ordering systems, such as Maple software loaded onto a Panasonic Toughbook CF-H1 tablet, aim to tackle some of these issues. In resource efficiency terms, not only does it encourage patient interaction in meal ordering, which can often lead to greater enthusiasm for the food, and reduced plate waste (in the case of children in particular) but, if a patient moves bed, the nurse can update the system to take the meal preference with them. With less paperwork for the ward nurse, and fewer trips to the kitchen to place orders, the system is more efficient and changes to meals have greater time allowance in which they can be made.

Waste management technologies - Several technologies exist for managing food waste onsite, either through dewatering systems, onsite in-vessel composting (IVC), or vacuum and pump systems. One example is the Waste20®, a small scale food digester, capable of digesting up to 180 kg of organic food waste per day. Food

18 CESA (2007) The UK market for food service equipment19 WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry


is broken down from solid to liquid effluent, which is suitable for disposal via the sewer as ‘grey water’. No solid waste remains and no transportation offsite is required.

Equipment efficiency technologies - Voltage optimisation, such as that from Powerstar®, introduces a means to reduce electrical energy consumption, without changing any current business practices. In the UK, the National Grid supplies an average voltage of 242V (although it can be as high as 253V), whilst the equipment manufactured for UK use typically only requires a supply of 220V. The Powerstar® system brings voltage being supplied to a site in line with the specific equipment requirements of the site.

9.2 Disparity of technology available and technology usedWhilst technology is available for improved practice in the food service sector, this is not always taken up by all companies. There are several reasons thought to influence the adoption of new technologies in the food service sector, not least of which is the fragmented and highly SME-based nature of the industry (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1 Barriers to adoption of new technology, 2011Barrier to uptake Percentage of respondentsThe initial cost of the technology 56%The longer term cost of maintaining it 41%We don't have understanding/experience of technologies 25%Disruption in the short term 23%We don't know what the benefits will be for us 23%Our staff won't have the skills to use it 18%Don't have access to IT for reasons beyond our control 15%Fear of change 14%

Source: People 1st (2011) Technology in the hospitality industry – adoption and skill needsA survey of the hospitality sector in 2011 (Table 9.1) found that larger businesses, and also those operating on multiple sites, were more likely to adopt new technology (including computerised systems for stock control, EPOS systems, use of technology such as online social networking, and food preparation and cooking technologies). The key reasons were given as the following:

Smaller businesses employ fewer staff members, and have less demand for online systems of control.Smaller businesses often have less complex ‘back-of-house’ systems.Payback of capital investment is longer – larger businesses typically have a greater number of covers passing through, and higher revenue streams.

10. Economic and environmental cost benefit reviewImprovements in resource efficiency may be capital intensive - when based around technological advancements, for example - and these are only likely to be available for larger organisations which are able to gain the benefit of investment. More efficient equipment may be able to offer long-term reduction in energy or water bills but, for small businesses whose bills may be minimal, the return on investment may take longer, and the capital to invest may not be available. This section considers some of the payback periods offered by energy efficient equipment over conventional units. The optimum time to consider improvements may be at the point of refurbishment – or when installing new equipment in starting or expanding a business. Some technologies are more easily accessible to all, however, and smart metering alone can offer savings even to small businesses.

Current practice in the food service sector suggests that behavioural actions, which can be incorporated into everyday practices, and do not require significant change, may be the easiest to promote. Placing promotional awareness material around the site may help remind staff to behave more efficiently, and increase the likelihood of good practice. Basic staff training, at the point of other training (such as health and safety for example) may help implant these actions as general behaviour. Costs of these actions are difficult to calculate independently, and can often be absorbed to some degree, as part of general business training practices. The full technical version of this report looks at this in more detail.

Quantifying detailed cost benefits of every action which may improve resource efficiency is not possible, as each commercial kitchen is different, even within the same sub-sector – varying in size, location, staff and food type. The full report considers some of the opportunities with energy efficient kitchen equipment, based upon savings in utility costs and additional outlay on equipment, as well as some behavioural mechanisms that can offer rewards. Any site considering implementing resource efficiency measures may use these costings as guidance, but should determine site specific factors before taking any action. The Greater London Authority is due to commission life-cycle analyses for a variety of catering equipment but at the time of writing, data on energy consumption, water use, gas use and purchase price of kitchen equipment in the UK are insufficiently detailed to enable a cost-benefit analysis. Energy Star in the USA is advanced in this area, however, and has created online tools to assist industry members in purchasing decisions. These tools allow direct comparisons to be made between Energy Star rated efficient machines, and equivalent conventional equipment.


10.1 Fluctuation in energy price, and the trend of paybackOver the past five years, energy prices have, on average, increased 4% each year. Assuming energy prices continue to follow this trajectory, the use of energy-saving kitchen equipment will become more financially viable, with the payback period decreasing (Figure 10.1). The examples shown are given as guidance, with ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ kitchens based upon equipment found at kitchens reviewed for a recent Defra and Carbon Trust report20. They are examples, not ‘typical’ kitchens (due to heterogeneity of the sector, a ‘typical’ kitchen was not considered appropriate). Equipment used in the calculations is included in Appendix 2 of the full report.

Figure 10.1 Payback period decrease with energy price increase, for small medium and large kitchen types

Figure 10.2 shows how, as energy prices increase, the payback period for the Energy Star commercial kitchen items decreases. As previously outlined, there are benefits to using Energy Star appliances including net cost savings over the lifetime of the products. The graph shows that these net cost savings will increase as energy prices increase.

Figure 10.2 Net cost savings using Energy Star appliances with increase in energy price, for small, medium and large kitchen types.

10.2 Economic impact of staff training and campaign workThe cost of training staff for sustainable practice in food service is varied, with higher costs associated with greater depths of learning. Basic good practice can be taught alongside general training for no additional cost, but this may not last as bad habits become ingrained into convenient daily routines. For example, teaching staff that leaving produce to defrost under running water is inefficient may initially prevent this behaviour, but if not enough food has been left out to thaw, staff may revert to bad practice. By including reminder posters in prominent locations, staff may reconsider poor practice, and may modify behaviour accordingly. It is also important to engage with staff, and explain why certain practices should be avoided.

The Sustainable Restaurant Association, in partnership with the Nationwide Caterers Association (NCASS), offers online sustainability training aimed at “anyone in the catering industry”21. This is just one of several courses that focus on sustainability in the catering sector, and costs under £100, giving staff knowledge on ‘sourcing food’, ‘social

20 Defra (2012) Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator Contract Catering Sector21NCASS (2012) Sustainability training. Available at http://www.ncasstraining.co.uk/home/sra_sustainability_training.aspx, accessed 01/08/12


responsibility’ and ‘environmental practices’. Other courses can cost several hundred pounds, but their level of detail and/or one-on-one training is also greater. It is not necessary to use external training: small businesses in particular can instil good practice by having resources in place, ensuring staff understanding, leading by example and good organisation. WRAP have worked closely with the People 1st sector skills council, and City and Guilds, and there is now a course available http://www.cityandguilds.com/Courses-and-Qualifications/hospitality-and-catering/hospitality-and-catering/7019-sustainability-in-professional-kitchens.

10.3 Smart meteringAs discussed throughout this report, the first step to efficient practice is to understand consumption of resources. Smart metering and waste monitoring are two useful means of gaining understanding of own practice. Many organisations are reluctant to install meters due to initial costs, though recent findings suggest even small businesses may see savings of £230 a year after installation of smart meters, through greater understanding of high usage areas and real time cost associated with practices22. An earlier Carbon Trust report23 provides greater analysis of the economics, and suggests that (on 2007 costs) there was a clear business case for smart metering of water, gas and electricity at multi-site SMEs. However, benefits at single sites were less clear, with initial costs potentially prohibitive. Benefits were apparent over the lifetime of the meters, but these may not see payback until after five years. Increased utility costs since 2007 are likely to have made these payback periods more attractive, though more recent cost benefit analysis was not found.

10.4 Hidden costs and savingsWhen considering resource efficiency, costs associated with resource savings reach farther than the savings from purchases, or disposal costs. According to the Scottish Government website:

“Being resource efficient helps you cut the costs associated with waste disposal. And there are many other hidden costs that can also be saved when your business becomes resource efficient. These include energy and utility costs, labour costs and handling and transportation costs. A resource efficient business will typically save 1% of its turnover”24

Each of the potential resource savings may influence other aspects of operational costs. Water, for example, may be heated or cooled, or otherwise treated, before being wasted down the drain in inefficient practices. WRAP25 lists hidden costs associated with water as: cost of energy to heat water cost of chemicals for water treatment cost of wasted energy (e.g. pumping) cost of chemicals for effluent treatment cost of raw materials/product in effluent cost of labour.

Raw material waste is similar, in that it is often processed by the time it is disposed of. Some hidden costs to consider when disposing of food waste are: lost revenue cost of labour (preparation of food, additional cleaning) additional cost of unnecessary cleaning additional load on system (for example, unnecessary deposit of fats, oils and grease to the drain, which may

lead to further cleaning costs) energy costs (transporting, processing, cooking, hot/cold storage).

Unlike water and raw materials, wasted energy does not have an associated ‘disposal’ cost. However, there are still savings to be achieved through greater efficiency of use, in addition to the reduced consumption lowering supply costs, though these are less straightforward.

10.5 Financial barriers and incentivesThe initial investment in energy efficient equipment, or other resource efficiency technology, can be a significant barrier to food service companies operating on small margins. Financial barriers are considered greater for SMEs for two reasons. Firstly, SMEs use higher discount rates in their investment decisions because of a higher cost of credit and a lower company survival rate and, secondly, there is a more pronounced lack of access to capital for SMEs. Schemes to assist with these costs are available (Carbon Trust loans, the Enhanced Capital Allowances scheme, for example), but the awareness of these, and limitations/restrictions on when and where they can be used, may result in some companies not being able to use them.

22 Oxford Economics (2012) The value of smart metering to Great Britain23 Carbon Trust (2007) Advanced metering for SMEs 24 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/10/14120940/6 25 WRAP (2012) Tracking water use to cut costs


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/10/14120940/6

http://www.cityandguilds.com/Courses-and-Qualifications/hospitality-and-catering/hospitality-and-catering/7019-sustainability-in-professional-kitchens

http://www.cityandguilds.com/Courses-and-Qualifications/hospitality-and-catering/hospitality-and-catering/7019-sustainability-in-professional-kitchens

Where capital expenditure of new resource-efficient equipment is a barrier, alternative service models can be considered, with rental offering latest technology, without the initial outlay. Given the high failure rate for businesses in the sector, leasing equipment lessens the financial risk of upfront capital investment. Alternative purchase models and the effect on resource efficiency is a complex area and beyond the scope of this report. However, with the economic slow down continuing, further analysis of this area would be useful.

11. Achieving changeAs with any consumer-orientated market, change is constant and driven by market and consumer trends. Issues such as ‘green credentials’ affect all sub-sectors, but changes such as alcohol driving limits mainly impact the profit sub-sector alone. General industry trends and those within specific sub-sectors can be seen in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Consumer trends relevant to each food service sub-sectorSub-sector Market/Consumer Trend Impact on Resource EfficiencyProfit Sector ‘Value’ expectations – expectation of value for

the amount consumers payFood must be fresh, reasonably priced and consistent. More focus on procurement and supply chain systems to achieve this.

QSR Public awareness of anything perceived as detrimental to the green agenda e.g. beef sourced abroad

Big brands like McDonald’s keen to develop UK sourcing and sustainable supply chains e.g. British beef saves food miles

QSR/Restaurants Mega-trend in expansion of chain outlets. Driven often by price advantage to consumers. Local independents driven out of the market

Opportunity for large scale policies across a chain; independents must counter this by promoting local, ‘green’ and fresh attributes

Pubs Tighter drink-driving laws and decline in social drinking in pubs has led to greater reliance on serving food

Pubs have now got to combine a variety of waste streams, not just glass

Restaurants Competition from retailers who promote ‘Dine at Home for £10’ type campaigns

Pressure to move to having a cheaper menu option, maybe with limited options. Possibility to buy more of the same food, and implement economies of scale

Hotels Niche demand for eco-tourism and eco-hotels Focus in these hotels very firmly directed at resource efficiency (RE) measures – can use as benchmarks perhaps

All sub-sectors A move for end clients to ask for evidence of a supplier’s environmental/CSR policy

Increasing use by suppliers of toolkits to benchmark energy/waste performances, to indicate compliance (trade associations are often valuable here)

All sub-sectors Regulation and taxation Higher costs force organisations to look at ways to reduce inefficiencies

All sub-sectors Continued move to Grab ‘n’ Go concepts Particular implications for food packaging wasteAll sub-sectors Higher rents mean all space is at a premium Lack of space for bulky recycling infrastructureQSR, restaurants, hotels

Deskilling of staff driven by low wages Difficult to recruit staff engaged in RE

All sub-sectors Deskilling of staff driven by ‘fool proof’ technology such as self-cooking ovens

Ability to control certain efficiency levels independently of staff abilities

Cost sector Contract caterers increasingly needing – and wanting – to offer bundles of services, such as facilities management

Opportunities to streamline processes and manage waste better

Source: Oakdene Hollins

11.1 The role of guidance from government or other sourcesCustomers of the food service profit sector can switch between outlets easily and cost effectively, but because individuals lack financial negotiating power, outlets will feel the repercussions when consumers switch to or from them en masse. In this sense, headline government guidance campaigns, brand advertising or - conversely - bad publicity can be highly influential.

Suppliers in the food service sector often work on a high volume, low margin basis. They need a reliable supply chain and a consistent quality of food product. Switching from one producer to another entails many changes and can be disruptive, so supplier relationships tend to run on a long-term basis. Large contractors strive to establish efficient supply chains to minimise cost and waste, and the long-term nature of the relationships offers an opportunity to put in place sustainable policies. It is at this point that the role of government or other advisory sources is most able to exert influence. Contractors often turn to a relevant trade body for help and advice, or to gain an understanding of current regulations and sustainability practices. Toolkits and guidance available via the trade associations are therefore vital for the information to permeate the supply chain.


11.2 Guidance for SMEsThe British Hospitality Association suggests that larger businesses have already gathered the ‘low hanging fruit’ with further improvements reliant on more effort or investment in new technologies or techniques,26 but significant low- and no-cost opportunities remain for SMEs who make up the majority of outlets in the food service sector, particularly in the profit sector. Providing timely, accessible and relevant information for small businesses presents challenges for government departments and policy makers. In the cost sector, the GBS and local authority contracts present a channel through which resource efficiency measures can be disseminated.

However, in the profit sector, other methods of reaching SMEs need to be developed. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) recommends a single source of information for SMEs, such as an online portal within which sustainability would be included, as an important first step27. A deluge of general business information is directed at SMEs via websites, local authority leaflets, Business Link emails, FSB communications and word of mouth. The FSB reports that sifting through this information is confusing and time-consuming for its members and other small businesses, and so businesses can be discouraged at the outset from considering changes. The FSB therefore considers that the work of Business Link in attempting to bring all this information into one place was most welcome. Business Link was known to the majority of small businesses; if sufficient detail could be placed in such a portal – such as specific advice for hospitality businesses, or at least working links to such advice on other sites – then this may be an important first step for facilitating change. Also, WRAP has developed the BRE hub for SMEs and the Online resource centre for smaller HaFS sector businesses. There is also the HaFS sector Info Finder to help find other sources of HaFS advice and guidance.

11.3 Mandatory regulation Landfill tax - The Landfill Tax was introduced in October 1996 and is seen as a significant fiscal driver in

diverting waste from landfill. The £8 per tonne increase in the Tax in April 2012, increasing the tax from £56 to £64 per tonne, is estimated to have the potential of costing the hospitality sector up to £12 million extra in landfill costs. Waste prevention is considered the best way to cut the waste being sent to landfill. However, there will always be some waste and, for economic and environmental reasons, the remainder should be recycled. It is reported that last year the median cost of sending waste to landfill was £76 per tonne; recycling that waste costs just £43 per tonne.

Climate change levy - The CCL was introduced on the 1st April 2001. Its aim is to encourage businesses to become more energy efficient and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It is a tax on the use of energy in industry, commerce and the public sector. All revenue raised through the levy is recycled back to business through a 0.3% point cut in employers’ National Insurance contribution. In addition, to reduce the impact of the CCL for certain energy intensive users, Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) were agreed.

Bans and requirements - In May 2012, the Scottish Parliament passed new Waste (Scotland) Regulations aimed at individuals and businesses which “are designed to make the most of the fact that waste is a valuable resource which, when treated appropriately, holds the potential to significantly boost Scotland’s economy and create green jobs”. Importantly for the food service industry, the new rules will, for the first time in the UK, ban the disposal of “municipal biodegradable waste” to landfill (from January 2021) and require most businesses to present recyclable material and food waste for collection. In addition, from 2016 it would become illegal for businesses to dispose of food waste by putting it down a drain or sewer. The practicality and impact of observing these rules are unclear at this stage, but they will be likely to result in a dramatic increase of food packaging and food waste recycling by food service operators in Scotland.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) energy efficiency scheme - The CRC is a mandatory scheme aimed at improving energy efficiency and cutting emissions in large public and private sector organisations. These organisations are responsible for around 10% of the UK’s emissions. The scheme features a range of reputational, behavioural and financial drivers, which aim to encourage organisations to develop energy management strategies that promote a better understanding of energy usage.

11.4 Voluntary agreements Courtauld Commitment - The Courtauld Commitment is managed by WRAP and focuses on product (food

and drink) and associated packaging within the grocery sector. Phase 1 of the commitment began at a Ministerial summit in 2005 and ran between 2005 and 2009. The original Phase 1 targets were:- to design out packaging growth (zero growth achieved in 2008)- to reduce food waste by 155,000 tonnes (exceeded with 270,000 tonnes less food waste arising in 2009/10

than in 2007/08)- to reduce the amount of packaging waste over the same period (not achieved – total packaging has

consistently remained at circa 2.9 million tonnes due to a 6.4% growth in grocery sales volume).WRAP reports that over 40 major retailers, brand owners, manufacturers and suppliers have signed the agreement. Phase 2 of the Commitment was launched in 2009.

Hospitality and Food Service Agreement (HaFSA) - In June 2012, WRAP launched the HaFSA, focusing on the delivery of two collective targets:- Prevention target: Reduce food and associated packaging waste arisings by 5% by the end of 2015. This is

26 Personal communication. John Dyson, BHA. February 2013.27 Personal Communication: FSB 19/7/12


against a 2011 baseline and measured by CO2e emissions.- Waste management target: Increase the overall rate of food and packaging waste being recycled, sent to AD

or composted to at least 70% by the end of 2015 The Federation House Commitment (FHC) - The FHC is a voluntary agreement managed by WRAP and the

Food and Drink Federation (FDF) which aims to help reduce overall water usage across UK Food and Drink industry by 20% by 2020. The FHC was launched in response to the Defra Food Industry Sustainability Strategy produced in 2006. Signatories to the agreement include Brake Bros and apetito. Other brand owners operating within the hospitality sector that have signed up to the agreement include: Britvic Soft Drinks, Coca Cola Enterprises, Constellation (Accolade Wines), Greene King and Warburtons. Between 2007 and 2011 FHC signatories collectively made a 14.4% reduction in their water use (excluding that in the product) equating to a saving of 5.9 million m3.

Business Waste and Recycling Commitment - The BWRC is a responsibility deal developed jointly by Defra, the FSB, the Local Government Association and WRAP. The Commitment emphasises 12 principles of best practice that local authorities can use to tailor their service offering to local businesses. It is reported that SMEs produce 30 million tonnes of waste a year with recycling rates at around 50%. The primary objectives of the Commitment are to help boost recycling rates and tackle the issues smaller businesses face in getting access to waste services. To support this, a fund was launched in England in December 2011, totalling £500,000 over the next three years, and managed by WRAP on behalf of Defra. It is reported to give the private sector, local authorities and social enterprises the economic support for developing demonstration projects to show good practice and encourage the further development of food waste collection services from businesses in England. It will support greater recycling of food waste by anaerobic digestion and improved provision of recycling services to businesses, particularly to SMEs.

The 20p duty differentiator for biofuel - The Environmental Audit Committee reports that almost 75 million litres of used cooking oil (UCO), approximately one-third of total UCO produced in the UK, is currently collected from restaurants, food manufacturers and caterers. The UK Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance cites the 20p duty differential for biodiesel as a major driver; providing stability for the sector, promoting investment, training, employment and technical innovation in a vital part of the renewable energy industry. However, in the 2011 Budget the Government announced that the differential was to be abolished from April 2012 and instead biodiesel made from waste will receive double certificates under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO). The objective was to ensure a distinction was made between sustainable and unsustainable biodiesel sources.

The Ecodesign Directive - The objectives of the new European Parliament Ecodesign Directive are reported to be similar to the Energy Star system in the USA in terms of the development of energy efficiency test standards for equipment. CESA and the European Federation of Catering Equipment Manufacturers report that “at the moment operators looking to buy equipment have to rely on suppliers’ and manufacturers’ figures on energy savings and performance”. Provisional focus has been placed on the key catering product categories of refrigerated cabinets, blast chillers and walk-in cold rooms. Later this year the work will be extended to ovens, hobs and grills.

11.5 Capital allowanceThe Enhanced Capital Allowance (ECA) scheme for energy-saving and water use efficiency technologies was developed by the UK Government to encourage businesses to invest in energy-saving plant or machinery specified on the Energy Technology List, and similar equipment for water saving via the Water Technology List . The ECA scheme enables businesses to claim a 100% first year capital allowance on investments in certain energy or water saving equipment, against the taxable profits of the period of investment.

11.6 Influencing behavioural changeOften the greatest resource efficiency savings will only be won from improved equipment and technology when changes are made also to staff behaviour. Indeed, with waste reduction, little scope exists to ‘solve the problem’ simply through investment in more efficient equipment. Raised awareness and the training will streamline many kitchen processes including food preparation, raw material use and waste management. In larger food service organisations, behavioural change will be important at different levels; while kitchen staff, porters, servers and others in direct contact with the food served are critical to improvement of daily processes, managers will have greater influence, for instance, over menu planning, stock control and equipment servicing and replacement. When considering larger chains, decisions may be made at a head office level. Although schemes exist for the horizontal adoption of best practice in resource efficiency amongst large organisations such as the NHS28, there is little evidence of its focus on resource efficiency or the degree to which it is successful. This could form the basis of further research for greater understanding.

11.7 Staff awareness/trainingIt is critical to train staff on any new technology which may be used, or changes in practices with are introduced in order to reduce resource consumption and improve efficiency. The food service sector often has a high turnover of staff (particularly the QSR sub-sector), and therefore not only is training on arrival important (rather than ‘team’ training on introduction of new initiatives), but where possible, posters or messaging should be placed at points of intervention. This can be from very simple behavioural messaging such as posters for responsible water use, to

28 For example, the NHS Scotland Efficiency and Productivity Programme Delivery Framework, 2011-15


more advanced messaging such as Six Sigma.

11.8 Staff engagementA useful way of ensuring staff buy-in to resource efficiency is to involve them directly in the process of improvement. By clearly explaining the benefits of resource efficiency actions, and promoting staff participation in suggestions for new actions, staff are likely to feel more engaged with the campaign and potentially make more effort in reaching targets. WRAP’s BRE Hub can assist in this respect.

11.9 Mistake-proofingMistake-proofing can help reduce waste through human errors. At Whitbread and Costa restaurants, for example, they have implemented colour-coded internal and external container systems, with signage in different languages, to reduce the amount of errors made in segregating waste for collection/recycling.

11.20 Environmental management systemsEnvironmental management systems such as ISO 14001, can also facilitate behaviour change.

11.21 Barriers to behavioural changeEmbedded behavioural change takes time to filter to all staff, particularly if introducing new ideas or concepts. It is important not to overwhelm staff with too many changes at once if a system of long-term sustainability is desired.

12. Conclusions

The literature review shows the availability of research on the sector is varied in quality and coverage. Table 12.1 highlights the main data gaps. The analysis shows that there is good data coverage on the profiles of each sub-sector and waste data but more scant data on energy and water usage. For water, an overall water consumption figure for the hospitality and food service sector could not be determined, nor could the sub-sector level breakdowns. The water and energy data available typically refer to a bottom-up approach where a sample of outlets has been monitored to determine a breakdown of consumption by usage. In many cases this cannot be regarded as a representative sample and hence cannot be grossed-up to determine a sector level estimate of consumption. There is a clear data gap regarding SME engagement by sub-sector since much of the literature identified takes a generic approach across all sub-sectors. Similarly with technology, product and process innovation do not tend to be sub-sector specific. Examples of good practice regarding resource efficiency are typically driven by the large organisations working within the sector. These companies are more inclined to promote the initiatives that they are undertaking, and are targeted by delivery bodies.

Table 12.1 A summary of data availability

Sub-sectors Sector profile

Waste data

Energy data

Water data Technology Benchmarking SME

engagementExamples of good practice

Restaurants *** *** * *QSR *** *** ** * **Pubs *** *** *Hotels *** *** ** ** * *Leisure ** ***Staff Catering ** *** * *Health Care *** *** ** * ** **Education *** *** ** * *Services *** *** ** *

Source: Oakdene HollinsKey: *** = excellent coverage; ** = good coverage; *limited coverage; (no *) = little or no coverage


References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.BMG Research (2012) Response to the Green Deal – Research among the business community

Carbon Trust (2007) Advanced metering for SMEs

CESA (2007) The UK market for food service equipment

DECC (2012), Energy consumption in the UK

Defra (2010) Environmental Impacts of the Food Service Sector

Defra (2012) Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator Contract Catering Sector

Federation of Small Businesses (n.d) The waste review – the small business case.

Horizons (2012) UK Food service Industry in 2011http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/10/14120940/6

NCASS (2012) Sustainability training. Available at http://www.ncasstraining.co.uk/home/sra_sustainability_training.aspx, accessed 01/08/12

Oxford Economics (2012) The value of smart metering to Great Britain

Puckett, R.P. (2004) Food service Manual for Health Care Institutions San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

WRAP (2012) Tracking water use to cut costs

WRAP (2013) Waste in the UK hospitality and food service industry: A report on the nature and scale of waste generated by the UK hospitality and food service industry (comprised of restaurants, pubs, quick-service restaurants, hotels, leisure, education, healthcare, staff catering and services)


Documents

randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11669_Hospitalityr… · Web viewGeneral Enquiries on the form should be made to: Defra, Procurements and Commercial