Sustainability is the philosophy underlying a set of systems and practices designed to meet the needs of people today in such a way that the needs of people tomorrow will also be met. In a world of climate destabilization, resource depletion, population pressures and rapid technological change, the old ways of using energy and resources need to be transformed.

Sustainability is a complex issue. And the more one gets into the details, the more complicated it becomes. Applying the concept of sustainability to foodservice — an enormous sector that accounts for 3% of the nation’s gross domestic product and employs 10% of its workforce — means scrutinizing energy sources, equipment, HVAC systems, water, food sourcing, waste disposal and much more.

To learn more about what’s going on in sustainability conversations in foodservice today, FE&S convened a roundtable discussion with three foodservice service consultants who work with operators spanning a variety of segments. These consultants are:

Sojo Alex, principal at Envision Strategies — a specialist in master planning and management advisory services, primarily in higher education

Tarah Schroeder, vice president of Ricca Design Studios — adept at planning, concept development and design for clients in lodging, corporate dining, higher education and public assembly facilities

Georgie Shockey, principal at Ruck-Shockey Associates — an authority within the healthcare foodservice sector with an emphasis on conducting operational reviews, assessments and design planning

Here’s what they told us.

How does foodservice factor into the institution’s overall sustainability goals?

Alex: Some of our clients have their own sustainability departments with overall goals. In that case, our task is to translate that vision of campus-wide sustainability goals to what foodservice can do. Stakeholders who are sustainability leads on a campus are usually part of the dining master planning advisory group. If there is no campus-wide sustainability program, the institution may actually be looking to dining services to lead the conversation. That’s often the case at smaller universities.

Schroeder: In every project, the process begins with really understanding where the client is coming from. Does the institution have a mission and vision for sustainability that incorporates foodservice operations? Either way, we work with the foodservice team to define sustainability in the context of the new project. Recently, we’ve been involved in campus-wide studies. One Silicon Valley client was looking at creating an all-electric building but put the process on pause when they realized they would have to look at the whole campus rather than a single building.

Shockey: In healthcare, project leaders above the foodservice department are thinking about sustainability. Once the conversation comes up, they have “aha!” moments. We can get so focused on foodservice, kitchen equipment and its use of energy that we don’t think of sustainability in the context of an entire building or campus.

What conversations are happening with clients right now around sustainability issues? And how does cost factor in?

Schroeder: We begin by asking who are the customers, and what are the customers’ expectations of foodservice? Are there codes the institution has to follow that will drive certain decisions? Are they trying to obtain the WELL Building Standard or LEED certification or another type of green building certification? All of that will influence our conversations around utility efficiency, refrigeration, health and wellness, water quality and efficiency, food recovery, reusable wares — and all of those have multiple subcategories. It can be more than the operation wants to bite off at one time, so we focus on priorities, such as food waste or energy or an all-electric kitchen.

Regardless of the market — healthcare, colleges and universities, K-12, and public assembly — the majority of institutions are designing a foodservice operation to last for 20 to 30 years. So, the conversation can be less about spending an extra $10,000 on all-electric equipment and instead about choosing the right equipment and looking at the return on investment from a sustainability and labor perspective. And if the customer is a college or a corporate campus, they know that they need to focus spending on decarbonization goals in order to attract and retain the students and/or employees they want. College and university students, especially, also want to know about food recovery plans.

Shockey: Clients are in the stage of, “Do we jump into sustainability now or wait to see what manufacturers come up with?” They’re asking us to help them weigh the pros and cons of how to build a sustainable, flexible kitchen that will be operational for the next 30 years — sometimes for the next 65 years — since healthcare institutions don’t replace their kitchens nearly often enough.

We talk about the workhorse pieces of the kitchen that they will rely on, then take a deeper dive into what they and their bosses think they can afford. They want the ability to save energy. They’re looking at initial cost, return on investment, the advantages of longer use, the eventual replacement cost and the cost differentials. We then look at 10 to 12 pieces of equipment and evaluate what their impact would be.

Another big issue we talk about is water, meaning using less water in all equipment. And reusing water, which could include recirculating water in cooling towers, combi ovens with self-contained water reservoirs, steam kettles with internal heating elements, circulating water to cook, and reuse rinse water in warewashing. Also, refillable water stations versus bottled water as part of the master plan.

How much food processing will the client do? Are they going to source more processed food or precut ingredients to generate less waste in the kitchen? Depending on the answers and the philosophy behind them, the kitchen will be smaller or bigger, and that comes into play in master planning for buildings.

Alex: Kitchen electrification is important right now. So is rethinking how we design dish rooms. But sustainability goes way beyond kitchen design. Food waste and food insecurity [on college campuses] are part of significant discussions. Zero waste — how operations can make the best, productive use of what they’re buying. Conversations have gone beyond local sourcing to what’s being sourced and the effects of that. Considerations around social justice, equity and inclusion have become part of the sustainability conversation.

How is progress being measured?

Alex: Everybody wants sustainability as a goal when planning foodservice on a campus, and they also want to understand how to measure these goals. But is it always a main goal when balanced against the cost and quality of food? What we are pushing toward from the management advisory services perspective is to add sustainability as one of the key performance indicators in the client’s planning, measured as part of an annual audit. There have to be specific goals to be measured against — for example, quantity of local purchasing. People forget to do it unless the goal is very particular.

There’s also a huge disconnect between the vision and cost of sustainability and what is communicated to the end user; diners need to understand the goals, the vision, the story, but that connection isn’t happening — or isn’t happening as fast as it should. Technological tools increasingly can be used to measure key outputs, and those can be publicized for end users. For instance, some college dining halls weigh food waste and communicate that information to diners on monitor boards in the seating area. Some dining services departments are adding sustainability managers to help communicate the story, or sustainability interns to help manage the technology of measuring food waste. That helps make the connection to the bigger perspective.

Schroeder: If there isn’t a sustainability manager specific to foodservice, it can be harder to specify the metrics. Should the operator be targeting reduction of energy use? Should they look at zero waste? Are they using benchmarks to formulate goals for dining services?

Technology can help. Having a dashboard can change how decisions are made. For instance, there are dashboards on exhaust hoods that tell workers how much replacement air they’re using for what they’re cooking. Food waste tracking is another option. Platforms exist that can help operations save money on their operations; if they reduce food waste, they don’t have to purchase as much food to prepare menu items.

Shockey: Probably 50% of our clients have either tested or used a software program to measure waste. We can now measure carbon footprints; some contracts and proposals are asking for that information. Wholesale food distributors are being measured, and everyone that touches the healthcare community is being measured, at least in more advanced systems.

Does sustainability connect with contract management discussions?

Alex: We are typically in charge of the request for proposal process to bring food management contractors to campus, and sustainability is usually an important line item when it comes to goals and finances. Specifics depend on what each individual campus wants. Most companies have significant data they use for benchmarking, and that helps our clients in envisioning their goals and measurements. For instance, they can predict what percentage of students will choose plant-based foods. These firms may also have certifications for green or ocean-friendly foodservice, etc.

Schroeder: Some of the larger contract management firms have sustainability goals as a big part of their culture and will have somebody in charge of sustainability for their whole organization. As a partner with on-site foodservice, they bring ideas to the table and can be very involved. But I’ve also seen the flip side; some contractors don’t have the education or understanding to deal with the client’s standards. Their equipment specifications don’t call for the same level of efficiency, or they aren’t addressing the push toward all-electric kitchens. Priorities have to be navigated when the contractor and the client sit down at the table together.

Shockey: We are at the table in discussions between the client and contractors. We know how educated and how aggressive the contract management firm is before we walk into the project. If the company has a person at the table who is in sync with sustainability, they’re going to lead the conversation. Another layer of challenge is getting the contractor up to speed with the client’s goals. However, we have no control over how the hospital has set up some practices, such as the waste stream, so we have to navigate around those limitations.

To what extent are your conversations with clients revolving around all-electric kitchens?

Schroeder: In the last two years, our number of all-electric projects has doubled, and it’s only going to grow. Some of that has been because certain jurisdictions have become more aggressive. Codes are a big part of what we have to deal with now as designers. And certain clients have made commitments even when there are no local codes that they need to follow. Kitchen electrification has multifaceted impacts on kitchen design, layout, workflow and equipment choices. In an existing building, it can be hard to boost the electrical load; 460-volt service is not available, and that limits what you can do.

Electric kitchens are not something new, but they’re new in the U.S., so foodservice operators and dining directors have a learning curve. We have to do a lot of education, along with check-in conversations with chefs and kitchen teams regarding their level of expertise with induction or all-electric equipment. Fortunately, manufacturers of electric equipment and even utility companies have training facilities.

Sojo and I both worked on a Living Building Challenge [an initiative through the International Living Future Institute] at Swarthmore College that involved the creation of an all-electric 800-seat dining hall. One of the things the college did was to get their chefs trained. Some of the staff didn’t know how an induction wok or a combi oven worked. The college purchased equipment early so employees had a chance not only to train on the equipment but to work with the equipment in an existing dining hall before the new facility opened.

Shockey: In healthcare, there’s been a push toward all-electric kitchens, but what clients look at most is the ENERGY STAR rating on equipment. Additionally, in both existing and new buildings, we watch the total electrical load. Electrical service has to stand up 24/7, with generators to handle any outages, so we can get tapped out. And clients may have other sustainability priorities for the building besides foodservice. I’m working on a project in which the client elected to focus on creating 100 charging stations for electric cars, so we had to cut back on electrical service to the kitchen.

How do you think sustainability conversations and goals will evolve over the next few years? 

Schroeder: The hope is that technology will make it easier for foodservice operators to achieve sustainability goals. We’ve been talking about planned maintenance and longevity of equipment for a long time, and now equipment can send a message to the service technician for planned maintenance or if the equipment isn’t working properly. This type of technology means less cost and burden on the foodservice operator — a win for both sustainability and the bottom line.

I think what will push the needle is staffing challenges. Technology and automation that in the past might have been value-engineered out of a project have become a priority. We’re also seeing features for staff comfort — windows in the kitchen, HVAC to keep the temperature comfortable — that wouldn’t have been as important of a conversation 15 years ago.

Automation is part of every conversation. Manufacturers are advancing the connected kitchen. Artificial intelligence will help us make decisions. A lot more will happen automatically with energy use and water use without everything having to fall on operators. Having better data will help us ramp up and ramp down food ordering and food storage to avoid waste. There are a lot of opportunities to use technology to help us get through to the other side.

Alex: Financial considerations are No. 1 right now — how affordable and achievable a climate-positive goal is for the foodservice operator and for the university, and how to achieve the overarching goals of government regulations. Ideas, strategies, and financials depend on the campus.

A lot of college students are activists, and we have to align our decisions to that generation’s activism as well as to what’s being communicated from around the world. Moving toward a sustainable future is everybody’s responsibility, with each of us contributing to make those changes.

Shockey: If equipment costs continue to escalate as they have over the last couple of years, the goalposts will move farther out. Projects are becoming way too expensive. Hospitals are operating on tight margins, so they will have challenges to putting in robust, capital-intensive sustainability programs. We can get our clients some achievable wins, but sustainability in equipment may not be a win.

Whatever we can do in our small world of foodservice to make the world better in 20 or 30 years can be really impactful.