Content uploaded by Rebecca Hawkins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rebecca Hawkins on Feb 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corporate social responsibility
and sustainable food procurement
Mike Rimmington
Faculty Organisation and Management, Sheffield Hallam University,
Sheffield, UK, and
Jane Carlton Smith and Rebecca Hawkins
Centre for Environmental Studies in the Hospitality Industry,
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The research (funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation) aims to support the UK Public
Sector Food Procurement Initiative by working with leading contract caterers to develop principles of
sustainable food procurement and key performance indicators to measure progress in putting them
into practice.
Design/methodology/approach – Initial informal discussions with catering contractors confirmed
the need for the research and explored ideas as to how to take it forward. Extensive secondary research
then informed the development of nine draft principles of sustainable food procurement. These were
further refined following review by individual companies. An expert panel was then convened for final
drafting and to reach consensus.
Research limitations/implications – The research provides operating principles that can be used
to inform procurement practice. However changing organisational practice, particularly in large
organizations, is challenging and will take time. The researchers have produced a guide to assist
implementation and monitoring of progress.
Practical implications – Public sector catering is only 7 per cent of the total catering market by
value. Therefore progress in this sector has a limited impact on the overall catering food supply chain.
Only five of the original nine principles were adopted, so not all aspects of the sustainability agenda
may be addressed.
Originality/value – The paper has value in assisting the implementation of UK Government policy
towards sustainable food. Participants in the research are dominant within public sector contract
catering and have reached consensus as to which aspects of the sustainability agenda it is feasible to
progress at the present time.
Keywords Corporatesocial responsibility, Public sector organizations, Cateringindustry, Food industry,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Catering services within the public sector are found in higher and further education
institutions, schools, Ministry of Defence establishments, the National Health Service,
prisons, police, and local government offices. Catering in the public sector is provided
both directly (direct control by the public sector body itself) and through the use of
contract caterers[1].
For the UK contract catering sector, turnover in 2004 was £3.89 billion (British
Hospitality Association, 2005) of which food represented just over 33 per cent. The big
four contract caterers are all multinational and have a combined worldwide turnover of
£26 billion. Within the UK market, the big four together account for 99 per cent of the
market.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
BFJ
108,10
824
British Food Journal
Vol. 108 No. 10, 2006
pp. 824-837
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070700610702082
Food procurement by public sector catering services in the UK has been estimated
to be worth £1.8 billion per year by the Department of the Environment Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (DEFRA, 2002). These catering services therefore represent an
opportunity to target expenditure in ways that will support Government policy.
According to DEFRA (2002, p. 1), introducing its public sector sustainable food
procurement initiative:
The government wants buyers and their internal customers to use this buying power to help
deliver the principle aims of the government’s strategy for sustainable farming and food in
England.
The broad benefits of sustainable food procurement have already been articulated by
Morgan and Morley (2002), particularly with respect to the potential for locally oriented
supply chains supporting local economies. Recent research by the New Economics
Foundation (2005) has also emphasized the economic as well as environmental benefits
that such locally oriented sustainable supply chains can bring.
The research context
Research previously carried out by the authors in the three counties of Berkshire
Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire estimated that the overall value of public sector food
procurement was £62 million per annum (see Table I), a figure that is broadly in line with
the DEFRA national estimate. The estimate is based upon underpinning research
conducted to support a conference, “Good food on the public plate”, held in March 2004[2].
The research confirmed that catering provision in the public sector involves both
public sector and contract caterers and a sophisticated supply chain. In an effort to
secure best value, public sector catering has been significantly penetrated by contract
caterers, e.g. in the National Health Service, just less than half of provision has been
placed with contract caterers. Multinational companies such as Compass Group,
Sodexho and Aramark are prominent in this geographic region of the public sector,
alongside a number of independent regional caterers (see Figure 1). Within the three
counties only MOD catering provision was operated directly without contract caterers,
although it has a sole supply agreement with 3663, the largest catering supplies
distributor, which set up a separate division to handle this contract.
Overall, the public sector catering services are therefore provided by a combination
of direct service organisations and large and small contractors. To transform the way
these function therefore demands all parties to pursue the sustainability agenda. This
research has focused on working with contract caterers active within the public sector.
Sector £ million annual value
Universities 22.0
Ministry of Defence 16.0
National Health Service 10.3
Schools 7.5
Further education 2.2
Prisons 2.2
Police and local authority 1.7
Total 61.9
Table I.
Public sector catering
food procurement in
Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire and
Oxfordshire
Sustainable food
procurement
825
Sustainability and sustainable food
Sustainability is a simple concept to define: “to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), but complex to put into practice.
Sunderlin (1995) and Selman (1998) identify the abstract nature of sustainability as
a concept and the need to build progressively from small tangible beginnings to a fuller
sustainability agenda. Since it is difficult to secure consensus amongst different
stakeholders, well-researched guidance is necessary.
Lawrence (1997) agrees that there are many issues and obstacles that must be
addressed if the sustainability concept is to be translated into practical implementation
strategies. A process of defining sustainability in its context and identifying its limits
must then be converted into needs, aspirations and principles. These should be put into
operation by strategies and frameworks encompassing relevant instruments, procedures
and processes. Graedel (2003, p. 48) states that few sustainability guidelines are available
for service industries wishing to green their operations and that:
In a world where “what gets measured gets managed,” unless suitable indicators and
approaches for measuring environmental responsibility are developed, the environmental
implications of a possible service sector transformation cannot be assessed.
Sustainability with regards to food has been defined by organisations such as DEFRA,
the UK Sustainable Development Commission and Sustain. It is generally considered to
cover the aspects in the list below:
.promoting good health through a balanced diet and safe food;
.accessible, socially inclusive, affordable, and reflecting local communities,
culture, and seasonality;
.supporting the local economy by buying food from as close by as possible;
.sustainable farming, involving high environmental standards and reduced
energy consumption;
.promoting animal welfare and valuing nature and biodiversity; and
Figure 1.
Catering contractors in
public sector catering
within Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire and
Oxfordshire
BFJ
108,10
826
.fair prices, fair trade and ethical employment in UK and overseas (Sustainable
Development Commission, 2003a; Sustain, 2002; DEFRA, 2004).
DEFRA’s interpretation of sustainable food has led to the adoption of five priority
objectives for the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI). These are: to raise
production and process standards; increase tenders from small and local producers;
increase consumption of healthy and nutritious food; reduce adverse environmental
impacts of production and supply; and increase capacity of small and local suppliers to
meet demand (DEFRA, 2002). These objectives are broadly in line with the
sustainability criteria, but do not include fair trade and social dimensions. They also do
not explicitly identify increasing public catering services’ procurement of organic food,
though it may be considered included by implication. Objectives are aspirational,
rather than in the form of specific performance targets.
There is therefore considerable overall consistency in defining what constitutes
sustainable food. However, some of these criteria may conflict in practice. For example, is
local conventionally produced food preferable to food produced following the stricter
environmental controls involved in organic production, but in another country, requiring
thousands of air miles to import it? Is fair trade food desirable, despite the air miles
involved? Can varied food preferences, religious food requirements and the requirements
of a healthy diet all be satisfied in large-scale public sector catering systems? Does this
mean processing, preserving and regenerating food in ways that might be considered out
of kilter with sustainable practice? Does opening the door to small producers mean losing
the economies of scale that make food accessible at a lower cost and also some of the
environmental benefits of efficient multiple drop distribution[3]?
As part of the work of the PSFPI, DEFRA (2005) have devised draft sustainability
clauses to place in contracts and tender documents, alongside some suggested
performance indicators, all contained within a toolkit[4] for procurement officers in the
public sector.
Research in Berks, Bucks and Oxon showed that, despite the above activities, there
was only limited evidence of sustainable practice within individual catering
operations. Interviews with contract caterers confirmed confusion about different
dimensions of the sustainable food agenda and a view that it needed to be moved onto
a more specific footing.
However, contract caterers considered that progressing the sustainable food agenda
was an important signal of their corporate responsibility and they would welcome
developments that would help its progress. Significant shifts have already been made
in some areas. For example, across the food service sector as a whole, 99 per cent of
eggs, 70 per cent of dairy products and 40 per cent of meat is sourced in the UK, thus
potentially reducing food miles[5].
Sustainability research with contract caterers
Considering this research context, the Centre for Environmental Studies in the
Hospitality Industry (CESHI) developed a proposal to work with the caterers
themselves and obtained funding support from the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation to:
Stimulate demand within the catering sector for food produced using sustainable methods, by
illustrating market opportunities, identifying barriers, highlighting best practice and
producing training materials.
Sustainable food
procurement
827
A key aspect of the research was to work with contract caterers to establish specific
operating principles and to determine how progress against these principles could be
reported and measured. There was agreement amongst the contract caterers that the
development of principles for sustainable food procurement, which could form the
basis for more sustainable practice and reporting within the framework of Corporate
Social Responsibility, could be a fruitful approach.
Research methodology
Having secured the agreement of contract caterers to participate in the project and to
the general approach to be adopted, secondary research was carried out to aid the
development of draft principles of sustainable procurement. The contextual
background and key priorities for action were identified from a broad trawl of
literature and web sources encompassing academic, government, NGO and other
organisations. The barriers to sustainable food procurement were then discussed at
separate meetings with contract catering businesses, selected to represent the market
leaders, and one regional operator which had already begun to tackle the issue of
sustainable food. This methodology was considered to be the best way of both
researching important features and the practicability of their implementation.
Following these informal discussions, nine draft principles were prepared.
An “expert panel” was then formed and a panel meeting was attended by senior
managers from the four top contract catering businesses, a regional public sector
contract caterer and representatives from DEFRA, the British Hospitality Association
(BHA) and Hotel and Catering International Management Association (HCIMA).
Following a presentation on current definitions of “sustainable food”, operational
implications and consumer recognition, there was general discussion about the set of
nine draft principles for sustainable food procurement, the extent to which it was
feasible to implement them and how performance against them could be measured (this
included discussion of unsustainable practice).
Research results
The outcome of prolonged discussion was that the contract catering representatives
agreed to take five principles back to their companies for endorsement as a workable
basis to underpin sustainable procurement practice. CESHI were tasked to work up key
performance indicators that would enable companies to report progress against these
five principles and develop a guide to reporting on sustainable procurement
performance – in the context of a CSR report, annual report, or environmental report:
(1) Selecting food products from the country in which they are to be offered, when
these products are available in sufficient volume, appropriate quality and at
competitive price, in preference to using imports.
(2) Providing appropriate menu information and food offerings to consumers so
that they can make choices based on food provenance and sustainability.
(3) Taking relevant steps to avoid the purchase of foods in the knowledge that they
have been produced (anywhere in the world) using processes known to
excessively damage human health and/or the environment.
(4) Working with other contract catering businesses and supply intermediaries to
find ways of adapting existing centralized purchasing systems to meet the
BFJ
108,10
828
needs of smaller local and/or regional suppliers (especially by working with
relevant organizations to ensure HACCP procedures are developed in a form
more appropriate for small businesses while not compromising on health or
safety).
(5) Ensuring that food products are processed using facilities that are resource
efficient (i.e. have a commitment to reducing energy consumption, minimizing
waste and reducing water consumption).
Whilst the expert panel acknowledged the need to pursue these principles, attention
was drawn to operational constraints that affected the ability to fully implement them
in the short-term. The important role of supply intermediaries was emphasised and
therefore contractors would need to amend purchasing specifications rather than
always implement actions themselves. The extent of changes to practice would also
need to take on board the range of different food preparation and production processes
(e.g. regeneration of frozen meals), and not undermine the need for due diligence and
strict adherence to health and safety regimes. It was also pointed out that the largest
four contract caterers that account for over 90 per cent of the contract catering
market all have extensive international supply chains and international operations.
Supply chain efficiency is important to providing good value for clients and individual
unit managers are often required to operate catering services using only approved
“nominated” suppliers.
The four other principles, to which the companies were not yet prepared to sign up
(although one company has since become a signatory to the ten principles of the UN
Global Compact, which covers Principle 9) were:
.Principal 6: ensuring that transportation systems facilitate fuel/energy efficient
sourcing and distribution of food from the point of production/processing to the
point of consumption.
.Principal 7: ensuring that animal food products are sourced from livestock
production systems that comply with national regulatory standards and the
international standards being developed by the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) as they emerge
.Principal 8: ensuring that foods offered to consumers are prepared with the
minimum amount of additives, including salt and sugar, and working towards
providing more information for the consumer on additive content (as currently
done for nuts).
.Principal 9: working towards adoption of a corporate code of practice to address
the issues embraced by the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on
the Fundamental Principles of Human Rights at Work[6], or an alternative, such
as the Ethical Trade Initiative Base Code (of specific relevance to imported
foods).
Expert panel members considered that whilst these principles had general
applicability, the relative importance of each and the most appropriate methods for
their implementation would vary within each of the businesses represented.
There was general agreement that principal 6 was outside the control of the
businesses represented at this point in time. Achievement of principles 7 and 9 would
Sustainable food
procurement
829
be best dealt with by emerging regulation (principle 7) and the development of
preferred purchasing policies that are still in their infancy. The most contentious item
was principle 8. Most of the contract caterers were addressing issues relating to
healthy food, but it is an area that is seen as separate and distinct from that of
sustainable food.
The companies considered that there is much collective wisdom about actions that
are not considered to be sustainable, but little evidence about the trade offs- that have
to be made, e.g. is it more sustainable to buy beet sugar grown and processed in the UK
or to source cane sugar from developing countries? Research on purchasing decisions
involving trade-offs of different aspects of sustainability is needed to inform
decision-making.
Development of user guide to non-financial reporting
Based upon the five agreed principles for sustainable procurement, a guide to reporting
on sustainable procurement performance was developed for food service companies,
aimed primarily at contract caterers. The guide reviews and summarizes the readily
available guidance for businesses on sustainability and performance indicators, in the
context that, with the exception of the DEFRA toolkit (DEFRA, 2005), current guidance
has not specifically focused upon sustainable procurement and food supply chains.
Examples of indicators from other sectors are presented, some of the indicators from
appendix D of the DEFRA toolkit are included and some new ones, developed as a
result of the research, are presented for consideration.
In the published guide, the set of indicators (see Table II) is accompanied by
explanatory notes and information on provenance (abbreviated for the purposes of this
paper). Contract caterers are invited to consider using a selection of the indicators to
benchmark their performance on food procurement.
Conclusions
Initial research amongst contractors operating within public sector institutions,
showed that there was widespread commitment to corporate responsibility and that
sustainable practice was identified as a key component of this. However within public
sector catering services operated by contract caterers in Berks, Bucks and Oxon, there
was only limited evidence of sustainable practice impacting upon operations at unit
level.
Leading contract caterers expressed a desire to move towards more tangible
sustainable practice guidelines and performance indicators that would enable progress
to be measured and reported. This confirms previous views by Lawrence (1997) and
Graedel (2003) that to progress, aspirations need to be put into operation using
strategies and frameworks. These should encompass relevant instruments, procedures,
and processes and measurement through performance indicators is important.
The principles of sustainable procurement practice in contract catering and
associated performance indicators, developed after extensive secondary research and
discussion with contractors, potentially represent a move towards more tangible
expression of aspirations. However, following an expert panel discussion, only five of
the nine principles were adopted by contractors. The remaining four were considered
not to be feasible at the present time.
BFJ
108,10
830
Suggested indicators (in order of rigour) Definitions
Principle 1: selecting food products from the county in which they are to be offered, when these products are available in sufficient volume, appropriate quality
and at competitive price, in preference to using imports
1. Percentage of food supplied (by resale value) from local/UK
sources
There is a significant level of debate about a realistic definition of “local”
a
and about
the desire or ability of food service companies to change their centralized
purchasing and distribution systems to accommodate a large number of local
suppliers. Such an action would reverse the trends of recent years, where the
number of suppliers has gradually been rationalized, largely for logistical and
financial reasons
For practical purposes, it is likely that large food service companies will be able to
report on national food purchases in the short to medium term. Given the volume of
products purchased by food service companies, even a shift to national as opposed
to international supply chains will have a significant impact on transport emissions
and the farming economy
Clearly when dealing with raw and processed food products, it is important to
define precisely what comprises UK produce. We would suggest that the raw
materials in any food purchased in processed form must have originated from the
UK (e.g. chips made from British potatoes would qualify as UK sourced, but chips
manufactured in Britain from Dutch potatoes would not). For some products (for
example, ready made lasagne) it will be difficult to assess the UK component and so
we would suggest that businesses target specific fresh food commodity groups (e.g.
pork, fresh fruit) for reporting
2. Percentage of food by each commodity group purchased that is
UK sourced
Indicators 1 and 2 are alternatives, as indicator 2 may be easier to implement when
first beginning the process of reporting
3. Percentage of catering outlets offering a seasonal menu choice Seasonal menu choices go hand in hand with a buy British policy and –
theoretically at least – purchasing foodstuffs that are plentiful should make good
economic sense
4. Percentage of local purchasing in emerging countries Although only relevant in an international context, this indicator is shown here for
interest, as published by Sodexho in their 2003 booklet Ethical Principles –
Sustainable Development Contract
(continued)
Table II.
Suggested key
performance indicators
for reporting on
sustainable food
procurement
Sustainable food
procurement
831
Suggested indicators (in order of rigour) Definitions
Principle 2: take relevant steps to avoid the purchase of foods in the knowledge that they have been produced (anywhere in the world) using processes known
to excessively damage human health and/or the environment
5. Percentage of food supplied (by resale value) that meets criteria
for environmental assured standards, e.g. Red Tractor, LEAF,
organic
As for principle 1 above, with the possible exception of organic food purchases that
make up only a tiny percentage of food sales, there can be significant complexities
when seeking to report on food purchases across the business (including single
commodities and pre-prepared meals). When reporting for the first time, some
businesses may find it easier to report on specific commodities as opposed to all
commodity groups. Clearly simple commodities (meat, raw vegetables) will be
easier to report on than complex pre-cooked meals
6. Percentage of fish supplied (by resale value) which is certified
by the Marine Stewardship Council (or equivalent)
7. Number of sources of seafish used that feature on the Marine
Conservation Society’s Black list of locations (www.fishonline.
org/advice/avoid/?item ¼1)
This is used by Marks & Spencer in its 2003-2004 CSR report. See www.fishonline.
org/information/ for more information
8. Purchases of approved products as a percentage of total
products
Indicators 8, 9 and 10 – which are alternatives – are wide-ranging in that they have
been conceived by their authors (see below) in the spirit of ethical trading in the
sense of ensuring that worker exploitation is not a feature of the supply chain. They
are however equally applicable to this principle of only sourcing foods which have
been produced to certain environmental standards. Indicator 8 has been published
by Sodexho in the 2003 Publication Ethical Principles – Sustainable Development
Contract, in support of company policy to forge balanced and long-term business
relationships with suppliers and to choosing partners not only for their ability to
provide high quality products in the quantity needed but also for their commitment
to ethical values
9. Percentage of purchases sourced from approved suppliers Indicator 9 – published as 8 above – supports the development of long-term
business relationships whereby suppliers are asked to pledge to support
sustainable development, in particular by embracing the principles defined by the
International Labour Organisation
(continued)
Table II.
BFJ
108,10
832
Suggested indicators (in order of rigour) Definitions
10. Percentage of suppliers which follow a recognized sustainable
trading code of practice
Indicator 10 is a key performance indicator suggested by the Food and Drink
Federation in its Sustainable Development Report 2002. It is defined as an
“additional indicator, which companies may choose to take up if it is relevant to the
business”. A “recognized sustainable trading code of practice” is likely to be one
such as the Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code or the Global Compact, as well as
the aforementioned assurance schemes
11. Number of suppliers engaged in environmental initiatives For Indicator 11, three years’ data was used by J. Sainsbury plc in their
Environment Report 2002, not published since then. It is only suitable for direct
suppliers and in this case, mainly for “own brand” suppliers. Initiatives included in
the data are organics, ICM
b
/EUREPGAP, Farm Biodiversity Action Plans and
Marine Stewardship Council
Principle 3: working with other contract catering businesses and supply intermediaries to find ways of adapting existing centralized purchasing systems to
meet the needs of smaller local and/or regional suppliers (especially by working with relevant organisations to ensure HACCP procedures are developed in a
form more appropriate for small businesses while not compromising on health or safety)
12. Published policies and procedures which facilitate access to
approved lists for small suppliers
Such policies/procedures would include one or more of the following: information
on how to gain access to the supplier list and clear information on how new
suppliers are approved payment terms which are commercially viable for small
suppliers, e.g. payment made within 30 days rather than 90 days Evidence that
HACCP audits are carried out pragmatically so that small suppliers are given a
chance to meet the requirements, without any compromise on food safety issues
and traceability. Partnership work with small suppliers to develop their businesses
so that they can become approved suppliers (for example the partnership between
Compass Purchasing – now Sevita – and Snitterfield Fruit Farm at http://www.
fruitfarm.co.uk/index.htm)
13. Average time to pay bills to suppliers Both indicators 13 and 14 – which are alternatives – reflect the fact that small
suppliers are much more vulnerable to cash flow pressures and that prompt
payment is a lifeline for them, as well as good business practice. Indicator 13 is
suggested as a basic marketplace indicator by Business in the Community in its
publication “Indicators that count – social and environmental indicators – a model
for reporting impact”
(continued)
Table II.
Sustainable food
procurement
833
Suggested indicators (in order of rigour) Definitions
14. Percentage of invoices paid to agreed terms Indicator 14 is used by the Co-op in its 2003 CSR report, for which the auditors
concluded that the indicators reflect the Global Reporting Initiative’s 2002
Sustainable Reporting Guidelines and performance areas in the Business in the
Community Corporate Responsibility Index
Principle 4: providing appropriate menu information and food offerings to consumers so that they can make choices based on food provenance and sustainability
15. Percentage of sites (units) offering sustainable choices, e.g.
organic or Fair Trade
Sustainable choices could include organic or Fair Trade products, product lines
where the origin is known and communicated (e.g. Oxfordshire pork, Isle of Wight
tomatoes), “local” or seasonal menu promotions (see indicator 3). In some cases,
sustainable choices may be offered via brands
16. Percentage of units providing information about food
provenance to consumers
Most contract caterers have yet to develop processes for providing menu
information to consumers. This information can take two forms: information
provided on specific products which can be communicated to clients (for example,
dolphin friendly tuna from the Mediterranean, MSC certified fish, organic beef from
Devon); generic information about the company’s aspirations (e.g. wherever
possible we use British meat) or adherence to the British Meat Best Practice
Guidelines on labelling the origin of meat on menus
17. Number of product lines carrying information about
sustainability/food provenance (including Fair Trade)
18. Sales of product lines carrying information about
sustainability/food provenance (including Fair Trade) as a
percentage of all sales
(continued)
Table II.
BFJ
108,10
834
Suggested indicators (in order of rigour) Definitions
Principle 5: ensuring that food products are processed in units that are resource efficient (i.e. have a commitment to and procedures for reducing energy
consumption, minimizing waste and reducing water consumption)
The suggested baseline position for application of this principle is membership of Hospitable Climates, a government sponsored scheme. Advice for
contract catering businesses is available in the form of user-friendly fact files and other membership benefits include the opportunity to benchmark
performance against other members in the peer group
19. Number of sites/units that are enrolled into Hospitable Climates
membership (on sites where energy consumption can be
measured directly)
Many contract catering businesses operate almost exclusively on premises owned
by other companies and do not bear direct responsibility for energy or water bills.
Unless catering units are separately metered, savings from efficient energy
management cannot be identified. Hospitable Climates is a partnership programme
between the Government and industry (through HCIMA) which aims to help all
units in contract catering businesses reduce energy consumption by targeting
wastage. Evidence to date would illustrate that the programme delivers savings of
circa 10% on energy consumption
20. kWh electricity per dish served
21. Water consumed per dish served
Indicators 20 and 21 can only be measured for units which are separately metered
or where a check meter is installed
22. Grams of residual waste per dish served (after removal of
putrescibles for composting and recycling of materials such as
paper, bottles, cans and plastics)
23. Percentage of units which operate in accordance with corporate
environmental policies on energy, waste and water
24. Number/per cent of units which are recycling glass, cooking oil
and steel cans as a minimum
Data collection for indicators 23 and 24 would be by survey, which should be
carried out annually
25. Number/per cent of units registered with an environmental
management system, e.g. ISO14001
Notes:
a
Which can mean anything from “produced within a 30 mile radius” to produced in the UK. DEFRA defines “local food sourcing” as food
produced and sold within a limited geographical radius but which does not necessarily have any distinctive quality (thereby differentiating it from
“regional food” which has a distinctive quality because of the area in or the method by which it is produced);
b
Integrated crop management
Table II.
Sustainable food
procurement
835
It may also be argued that the principles do not, in any case, represent sufficient
progress. For example, principle four commits contract caterers to develop
procurement and due diligence procedures that are more appropriate to small and
local producers. However, principle one recognizes that in an age of global food
procurement, national supply may in itself represent a sustainability success and that
even this must be tempered with requirements concerning price and quality. There is
no principle explicitly representing a general commitment towards procurement of
organic or food from other certification schemes. However, the indicators for principle 2
do signal this.
Whilst the principles may be criticised for not going far enough, they do represent a
move along the sustainability continuum and a willingness by contract caterers to
adopt the food sustainability agenda in so far as operational and supply constraints
permit. The creation of performance indicators also represents a further tangible
development that will enable progress to be measured.
Notes
1. Contract catering has been defined as the part of the foodservice industry that is handed over
to a third party organisation to provide (MINTeL, 2002, p. 2). “The main characteristic of
contract catering is that it generally constitutes food and beverage provision for companies
and organizations for whom catering is not their primary activity. Contract caterers provide
the skills, equipment and personnel, and sometimes investment in premises, to operate the
catering function, allowing the company or organization to concentrate on its core activity”.
2. The conference was funded by Food from Britain, organized by Berkshire, Buckinghamshire
and Milton Keynes and Oxfordshire Food Groups and held at Oxford Brookes University. It
attracted over 90 delegates, including producers and suppliers as well as caterers.
3. Large food distributors such as Brakes and 3,663 operate out of central distribution hubs and
carry multi-product lines that are required by caterers and that can be dropped off in one
delivery from fuel efficient vehicles following well planned distribution routes that minimize
mileage.
4. Catering Services and Food Procurement Toolkit.
5. Presentation by Paul Kelly, Corporate Affairs Director, Compass to “Westminster diet and
health forum seminar on corporate social responsibility and the food industry”, 9 March
2005.
6. These are: freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of
forced and compulsory labour; the abolition of child labour; and the elimination of
discrimination in the workplace.
References
British Hospitality Association (2005), UK Food and Service Management Survey 2005,
available at: www.caterersearch.com/home/default.aspx
DEFRA (2002), Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative, DEFRA, London, available at: www.
defra.gov.uk/environment/sustainable/
DEFRA (2004), Organic Food Action Plan Two Years On, DEFRA, London, available at: www.
defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/actionplan/index/htm
DEFRA (2005), Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI), Catering Services and Food
Procurement Toolkit, available at: www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/procurement/toolkit.
htm
BFJ
108,10
836
Graedel, T.E. (2003), “Greening the service industries”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 48-64.
Lawrence, D.P. (1997), “Integrating sustainability and environmental impact assessment”,
Environmental Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
MINTeL (2002), Contract Catering, Mintel International Group Ltd, London, p. 2.
Morgan, K. and Morley, A. (2002), Re-localising the Food Chain: The Role of Creative Public
Procurement, Cardiff University Regeneration Unit, Cardiff.
New Economics Foundation (2005), “Buying local worth 400 per cent more”, available at: www.
neweconomics.org/gen/news_buyinglocalworth400percentmore.aspx
Selman, P. (1998), “Local agenda 21: substance or Spin?”, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 533-53.
Sunderlin, W.D. (1995), “Managerialism and the conceptual limits of sustainable development”,
Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 481-92.
Sustain (2002), “Public sector catering: opportunities and issues relating to sustainable food
procurement”, Sustainable Food Chains Briefing 2, Sustain, London.
Sustainable Development Commission (2003a), “Food and farming”, available at: www.
sd-commission.gov.uk/wp/03.htm
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Corresponding author
Mike Rimmington can be contacted at: m.rimmingtion@shu.ac.uk
Sustainable food
procurement
837
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
