This question is often asked by customers who want to operate more responsibly, enhance their brand, build a reputation and attract more customers in an increasingly competitive space. But the keyword here is “real.” We often focus on the metrics and indicators that matter most to customers and consumers. Understanding how they judge the sustainability of a venue is critical, as these perceptions are strong commercial drivers for change.
However, if we are talking about real sustainability impact, the question becomes: which metrics should we prioritize to build a resilient and productive food system that delivers not just in the short term, but over the long term?
Typically, the most visible indicators shape customer perceptions of whether a venue is environmentally responsible. These include minimized plastic packaging, reduced waste to landfill and signs of responsible sourcing, such as products carrying Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance certification, B Corp status, or messaging around UK or locally sourced food. These elements all play an important role. However, this article focuses on impacts that are far less visible. A large proportion of our food comes from global supply chains, with consequences that extend far beyond the UK high street and our waste bins.
Taking a balanced scorecard approach helps avoid “carbon tunnel vision,” where focus on carbon impacts comes at the expense of other critical factors.
For the average person, it is extremely difficult to determine which organizations are genuinely driving meaningful change. This is due not only to a lack of transparency but also to the complexity of food sustainability itself. The Food Foundation has made significant efforts to improve transparency and support more informed procurement decisions. A useful starting point is its benchmarking of foodservice organizations, which covers nine priority areas that reflect true food sustainability:
● Climate change
● Animal welfare
● Human rights
● Encouraging healthy diets
● Healthy and sustainable food sales
● Biodiversity
● Water use
● Food loss and waste
● Sustainable food practices
Taking a balanced scorecard approach helps avoid “carbon tunnel vision,” where focus on carbon impacts comes at the expense of other critical factors. For example, the animal welfare metric includes the responsible use of antibiotics in meat supply chains, an important issue given that antimicrobial resistance is listed among the top ten global health risks by the World Health Organization. Similarly, the biodiversity metric considers actions to prevent deforestation, which contributes to both climate change and biodiversity loss.
These challenges are largely invisible to the end consumer, yet they are essential to address if we want to maintain productive and healthy food systems. Ignoring them is not an option.
So what should be done with this insight? The challenge for foodservice providers is to communicate these nuanced issues in a way that is simple, clear and builds trust with customers. Benchmarking results and scorecards can play a significant role, as can product certifications. A single logo can communicate a great deal about a business’s commitment to doing the right thing.
At the same time, customers have limited capacity to absorb multiple messages. Focusing on one theme at a time, such as through seasonal or temporary campaigns, can be an effective way to build awareness and strengthen brand perception.
Ultimately, sustainable food has to make commercial sense. People have to want to buy it, and it has to deliver on taste, affordability, and portion size. More and more foodservice organisations are pledging to “bang in some beans” as part of a nationwide campaign to double UK consumption of beans and lentils between 2025 and 2028. This is a simple way to deliver across all nine categories of food sustainability with minimal effort, while still meeting commercial expectations. Do explore the campaign as a practical solution to a complex challenge. It is steadily gaining momentum.
