The​ ​Role​ ​of​ ​Carbon​ ​Footprint​ ​Information​ ​for​ ​Restaurants:

A​ ​Multiple​ ​Case​ ​Study

1
BMMTMIM-16
Master​ ​of​ ​Science​ ​Thesis

The​ ​Role​ ​of​ ​Carbon​ ​Footprint​ ​Information​ ​for​ ​Restaurants:

A​ ​Multiple​ ​Case​ ​Study

Thesis​ ​Academic​ ​Coach:​ ​Prof.​ ​Lucas​ ​Meijs

Thesis​ ​Academic​ ​Co-reader:​ ​Prof.​ ​Alexander​ ​Maas
Author:​ ​Prithvi​ ​Mahabaleshwara
Student​ ​No:​ ​451480
Date:​ ​27​ ​November,​ ​2017

For​ ​the​ ​degree​ ​of

​ ​Master​ ​of​ ​Science​ ​in​ ​Business​ ​Administration​ ​(MScBA)​ ​-​ ​Master​ ​in​ ​Management
Rotterdam​ ​School​ ​of​ ​Management,​ ​Erasmus​ ​University

2
Preface
The​ ​copyright​ ​of​ ​the​ ​master​ ​thesis​ ​rests​ ​with​ ​the​ ​author.​ ​The​ ​author​ ​is​ ​responsible​ ​for​ ​its
contents.​ ​Rotterdam​ ​School​ ​of​ ​Management,​ ​Erasmus​ ​University​ ​Rotterdam​ ​is​ ​only​ ​responsible
for​ ​the​ ​educational​ ​coaching​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​held​ ​liable​ ​for​ ​the​ ​content.

3
Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this work as a sincere offering to Sri Sri
RadheShyam. I express my deepest gratitude to them for everything. I would also like to thank
my family and friends who have always stood by me and supported me throughout, especially in
my​ ​time​ ​in​ ​this​ ​foreign​ ​land.

I feel extremely fortunate to have been guided by the crisp wisdom of my academic coach, Prof.
Lucas Meijs, and co-reader, Prof. Alexander Maas. This work could certainly not have been
possible without their dedicated support and expert counsel. I consider my learnings from my
interactions with them as invaluable, and I shall cherish them lifelong. I sincerely thank them for
all​ ​the​ ​patient​ ​guidance.

I would also like to thank the respondent restaurants for participating in the research
unconditionally. It is needless to say that without their participation there would be nothing to
present. I would like to express my gratitude to the numerous other people who selflessly lent
immense help in form of their time, effort, and knowledge: Pinar Coskun from Erasmus Food
Lab; Manuel Klarmann from Eaternity; Laura Heerema from GiantLeaps; Aneesh Seth from
23bytes;​ ​and​ ​Lily​ ​Stamenova​ ​from​ ​FeedbackFruits.

4
5
Executive​ ​Summary
Amidst the backdrop of the frenzy of climate change, its causes, its consequences, and frantic
efforts to identify ways to bring it under control, all three constituents of societal dynamics- the
society, the government, and the businesses- have the onus now to do their respective share for
the environment. In this particular research, businesses and their responsibility towards
responsible action are being zoomed into. For businesses to objectively look at the environmental
impact of their actions, there needs to be an objective measure to do so. Greenhouse gas
emissions- being one of the major causes for climate change- measured by the carbon footprint
information of the activities of the businesses are one of the widely used measure. The food we
eat being one of the main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, the activities of the food
industry- particularly the restaurant business- are being looked at in terms of their carbon
footprint in this research. There are many sources of carbon footprint information for the food
that the restaurants serve but not many are adhering to the practices deemed sustainable by this
information. For the purpose of this research the practices deemed as sustainable by carbon
footprint information are limited to procurement, usage, and sales of lesser animal-based
ingredients, more plant-based ingredients, seasonal sourcing, and local sourcing. The apparent
gap between information and action, which might be attributed to the different contexts of
different restaurants, is being explored in this research. The aim of the research is to explore the
role of the carbon footprint information for restaurants, keeping in mind the different contexts-
particularly the ‘’Environmental concern/disposition’’, ‘’Cost/budget’’, and ‘’Effort/time’’ as
defined in the research. The research proposes that varying according to the mediating factors of
these contexts, the carbon footprint information plays an empowering/supportive role rather than
a transformative one. This propositions is tested in qualitative way, by conducting a multiple
case study through semi-structured interviews with seven respondent restaurants. The research
finds its proposition to be true, with the context of ‘’Environmental concern/disposition’’ playing
a​ ​pivotal​ ​role​ ​followed​ ​by​ ​‘’Cost/budget’’,​ ​and​ ​‘’Effort/time’’.

6
 Contents

Introduction 8

Research​ ​Background 10

Critical​ ​literature​ ​review 12

Life-cycle​ ​assessment​ ​tools 12
Eco-labels​ ​and​ ​labelling 13
Relationship between food and climate change, sustainable practices by restaurants and
the​ ​associated​ ​trade-offs. 13
Effect​ ​of​ ​information​ ​on​ ​environmental​ ​behaviour 15
Sustainable​ ​behaviour​ ​in​ ​food​ ​choices 17

Conceptual​ ​model 17

Research​ ​Question 24

Methodology 27
Research​ ​Design 29
Case​ ​Study​ ​Method 30
Case​ ​Study​ ​Design 31
Data​ ​Collection​ ​Methods 32
Interview​ ​Respondent​ ​Selection,​ ​Protocol​ ​and​ ​Process 34

Data​ ​Analysis 36

Results 38

Discussion 49

Limitations 53
Limited​ ​Respondent​ ​Restaurants 53
Respondent​ ​Restaurants​ ​from​ ​different​ ​locations 53
Self​ ​inference​ ​of​ ​Brand​ ​Identity​ ​spectrum 54
Bias​ ​in​ ​the​ ​representatives’​ ​answers 54

References 54

Appendix 67

7
Introduction
The time in history we are in is of high significance in the context of the planet’s climatic future
as environmental efforts from all over have started to gain consolidated momentum (Hecht,
2014). The recent Paris Climate Accord event - where leaders from almost all countries in the
world met to pledge their allegiance to the welfare of the planet through various steps and targets
that they set for themselves - can be seen as a manifestation or collective condensing of the
growing concerns since the past decades for the deteriorating environmental health caused by
human activities. There is an increasing awareness that the natural environment is being harmed
by human actions. Polling data suggest that high percentages of people around the world believe
that environmental problems are among the most important social problems of the day (Kempton
et al​., 1995). ‘Awareness of the need for this fundamental transition and for climate change
policies in particular has grown but many social systems are also highly resistant to change.’
(Moser & Dilling, 2007, p. 492) The environmental and economic data that indicates the current
trends in economic growth is used in the development of sustainability, then it is not viable in in
the long run (Gibson, 2006). We are already seeing heightened attention to climate change by
multiple pockets of society. Climate change is constantly seen to be kept in the public eye
through stories on local to international policy developments, the entry of important players into
climate change issue domain, and government interference with how scientists communicate,
along with increasingly alarming scientific findings. (Moser & Dilling, 2007) These steps by the
world leaders is also being reflected by the simultaneous increase in the awareness of the need to
consume sustainably by the consumers as well as the increase in the need for businesses to have
environmental good on their agenda, as a complementary phenomenon (Nielsen, 2015; Hozik,
2016). It is now beginning to become a common practice to align a business’ set of practices to
the UN’s SDGs in order to project an image of sustainability. Organisations of all shapes and
sizes, in all different sectors are jumping on the bandwagon to make their way of doing business
more sustainable, and reduce the negative impact they are having on the climate. With the kind
of urgency that the scientific community has expressed the urge for the world to have about
taking steps in order to restrict the global increase in temperature to 2 degrees celsius (Titley,

8
2017), it is imperative that all components of society do their bit to achieve that goal (NCSE,
2017): ‘Rising greenhouse gas emissions – a major driver of climate change– could negatively
impact human activity and natural resources.’ (Standish, 2005, p. 2) Even small fluctuations in
temperature or precipitation could have amplified effects for humans and ecosystems. (NCSE,
2017) estimates the global energy consumption to increase 150 to 230 percent by 2050, and the
demand for solutions to climate change to intensify immensely as a result. As both a source of
emissions and a potential provider of solutions, business has a pivotal role to play. All different
everyday actions at different levels by different fragments of society affect the environment
(NCSE, 2017). This increases the complexity of being able to track and monitor the
action-implication dynamic at each level, in-turn deeming the task of assessing the implications
of the actions itself as a herculean one. One of the main reasons for climate change has been
widely cited as the greenhouse gas emissions (Crowley, 2000). Despite the sheer number of
factors involved and the resultant web of a complex nexus between those factors, there has been
much research on trying to find the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions. The
definition of sustainability varies according to the arena in which it is applied. Academics define
and redefine sustainability across varied temporal and spatial scales (Kates ​et al​., 2005).
Sustainability literature agrees on the presence and interconnectedness of environmental, social,
and economic domains (Dasgupta ​et al​., 2000; National Science Board, 1999; Kaiser ​et al​.,
1995; Neuman, 1999). Among the many factors, this research picks ​up one ​of the biggest
contributors - food (Russell, 2014) - and then tries to channel into some specific parts of that
broad​ ​category.
Food we consume being one of the biggest contributors of climate change, the food industry also
has a big responsibility on its shoulders to scrutinize its practices. In this research, one chunky
constituent of the food industry is picked -the restaurants- to be scrutinized on certain aspects
regarding its impact on climate change. Locally-sourced, free-range, cage-free, seasonal produce,
compost, organic etc have become terms that are often used in the restaurant business (and also
in other food and beverage businesses), and have taken on the role of bringing in a
sustainable/environment-friendly identity to the business. Although some of these practices may
intuitively seem to be sustainable practices inherently better for the environment, the fact of the

9
matter is that the impact of these practices - in an absolute sense and also in a comparative sense-
can only be known if they are objectively measured. It will be appropriate to mention the fact
that there is an evident widespread of a phenomenon called “Greenwashing”, which refers to the
practice of projecting one’s business as being sustainable or as having practices that are not
harmful to the environment, whereas in reality those practices/policies are not of much
significance when it comes to having a positive effect on climate change (Bradley, 2011). Simply
changing a company’s mission statement will not help the company become environmentally
friendly. Objective measurement indices/frameworks will make it easier to identify practices
which are merely greenwashing practices adopted by businesses. As mentioned before,
greenhouse gas emissions life-cycle assessment (LCA) tools are one such offering which attempt
to do so in terms of the farm-to-plate carbon dioxide footprint that the food served in the
restaurants have. These tools enable restaurants to be brought into the carbon emission narrative
in a more objective manner. This research aims to explore the role of the carbon footprint
information of different ingredients/dishes on the decision processes in the operations of
restaurants. There is an attempt made in order to find out the role that the carbon footprint
information plays in the decision-makers’ attitudes towards practices which are suggested as
more environment friendly, and also tries to understand their behaviour in light of the
information in different contexts. The research mainly tries to achieve its aim by scrutinizing the
stages of procurement of ingredients, usage of ingredients, and sales/communication of products
in the operations of a restaurant. The restaurants that have been spoken to as part of the research
have been curated consciously trying to pick from different parts of the brand identity spectrum
ranging from fully commercial restaurants which do not have sustainability as part of their brand
image to restaurants that have sustainability as one of their core business pillars, in order to get
as​ ​much​ ​a​ ​holistic​ ​picture​ ​as​ ​possible.

10
Research​ ​Background
Despite the amount of attention around adoption of sustainable practices in the restaurant
business and also in the rise of conventional restaurants heralding sustainability as one of their
core focus points as well as vegan restaurants (Nguyen, 2017), those are still not considered to be
mainstream. According to Carlsson-Kanyama (1998), current food consumption patterns in the
developed countries exceed the level of sustainability by at least a factor of 4. Prospects for
achieving sustainable food consumption patterns are questionable in view of current trends in
food demand. In the wake of the many calamities in the world that are taking place which are
now known to be caused due to human caused climate change (Oxfam, 2017), the urgency in the
warnings by the scientific community for society to make behavioral changes is being
reciprocated in a disproportionately low manner (Barr, 2004). According to FAO (2006), food
and agriculture make up for 18% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation
contributes up to 14% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. While there are many countries that
have now pledged to phase out non-electric cars in just some decades and have already started to
work towards that goal along with transitioning to cleaner sources of energy over the years, the
same cannot be said in terms of food and agriculture. Despite animal agriculture and meat being
the food products known to have the highest carbon footprint (EWG report, 2011), there has
been a continued steady rise in consumption of meat (The Worldwatch Institute, 2011; Reubold,
2015). This specific knowledge-action gap is what forms the basis of this research. The aim of
the research is to try and explore the reasons for which some of the restaurants that use carbon
footprint information and the others do not, and also the role of such information in eliciting
sustainable behaviour, keeping in mind the different contexts and boundaries. The rational
thinking is that if information is given about a certain danger then people will take the necessary
steps in order to prevent or minimize that danger, but there is much evidence and also research to
suggest that that is not what really happens (Kahneman, 2003). Whether or not restaurants act
sustainably may depend less on their ability to distinguish between the greenhouse gas effect or
to trace the impacts of their lifestyle than on the strength of the more general underlying concern

11
(Owens, 2000). In fact, despite scientists’ calls for urgent action, climate change has slipped to
the bottom of the list of American priorities. (CRED, 2009). Western rationalist mythology
would want us to make decisions on rational thought alone. Yet, people make decisions based on
myriad of influences, including “irrational” beliefs and emotions (Kahneman, 2003). Emotions
play a powerful and necessary role in decision–making, as do preferences such as convenience,
prestige, and so on. In that case, what is the role that the LCA tools and the information provided
by them play in eliciting sustainable behaviour in people, specifically in the restaurant business.
Most people aren’t waiting for scientists to tell them what to think, so the solution is not simply
to provide them with more facts and figures (Mervis, 2015). The information is certainly
available but this research strives to explore the factors that lead to its usage and the effect that it
has​ ​on​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​process​ ​in​ ​the​ ​restaurants.

Critical​ ​literature​ ​review

Life-cycle​ ​assessment​ ​tools

Life-cycle assessment tools are provisions/programs which provide carbon footprint or

greenhouse gas emission information associated with a product tracing it throughout its
life-cycle. These emissions are popularly expressed in terms of CO2 footprint attributed to the
different products or activities according to the generalised emissions caused by those particular
products/activities. Such assigned values are known as the carbon footprint of that particular
product or activity. These tools attempt to account for all the emission that was caused in the
production, transportation, storage, and disposal of the product. These tools breakdown the
activities in each of the stages that the product passes through in its life-cycle from being
produced to being consumed to being disposed, into carbon footprint units or eco-points. These
tools are helpful in extending the economic input-output with environmental data, in order to
move towards an environmental GDP for green economy (FOEN, 2009). Different LCA tools
use different frameworks or models to devise the indices on which the LCA for the products will
be calculated. Many of the LCA tools use extensive databases which are curated pertaining to the

12
approximate emission of a certain product throughout its life-cycle (Baldwin ​et al., 2011). These
databases are generalizations of the emissions that a certain type of product causes and hence
when these tools are used to ascertain the carbon footprint of a product then the carbon footprint
shown is not for the particular ingredients used in that particular product, but a general idea of
the footprint from the type of ingredients used in that product (Hirayu ​et al​., 2013). There are
different LCA tools available today among which the Carbon Footprint of Products (CFP)
program,​ ​Eaternity,​ ​and​ ​PAS​ ​2050​ ​are​ ​some​ ​relevant​ ​ones​ ​for​ ​this​ ​research.

Eco-labels​ ​and​ ​labelling

Eco-labels are essentially the labelling used on products which convey some kind of
environmental value that the product adheres to. There can be different attributes/standards a
product adheres to that an Eco-label might be conveying, some of which include
Environmentally Degradable, Non-toxic Plastic Packaging Material, Hazardous Metal-Free
Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Biodegradable Cleaning Agents and Recycled Paper,
Vegan, Organic, GMO-Free, locally sourced, et cetera. Eco-labels and their implications are
usually derived from frameworks/models/standards which are set by associations or
organisations which aim to standardize and certify the respective attributes that the
corresponding eco-labels are to convey. GreenSeal, Cleanmetrics, and Nordic Ecolabel are
examples of some of the many groups that offer certifications and eco-labels to products on
different aspects which generally have an impact on the environment. In eco-labels that are used
on food products have various methodologies, quantitative as well as qualitative, by which the
attributes are quantified (Leach ​et al.​, 2016). The visual representation of the labelling can also
vary from being merely descriptive to being a rating system to being a more detailed
comparative benchmarking (Leach ​et al​., 2016). These different types of labelling yield different
types of results in terms of consumer behaviour, in different contexts (Röös, 2013). Eco-labels
have been known to influence purchase intention and also the physiological perception of the
product​ ​by​ ​the​ ​consumer.​ ​(Sörquist​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​2015;​ ​Ramli,​ ​2009).

13
Relationship between food and climate change, sustainable practices by restaurants and the
associated​ ​trade-offs.

Amongst the many different contributors to climate change nutrition, housing and mobility are
found to be the ones which cause the highest proportion of environmental impact (FOEN, 2009).
Food we consume is widely considered to be the activities which have one of the highest carbon
footprint. This makes it imperative to bring in the food industry and the restaurant business into
the​ ​responsibility​ ​and​ ​accountability​ ​loop​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​curb​ ​climate​ ​change.
According to Freeman (2011), ‘Review of sustainability and industry literature revealed that
considering restaurants as businesses with sustainable development options is the most
appropriate way to evaluate their sustainable practices or lack thereoff.’ (p. i) The current pattern
of food consumption in developed countries exceed the desired level of sustainability by atleast a
factor of 4 (Carlson-Kanyama, 1998). When different scenarios and combinations of ingredients
are tested to construct a meal and then the carbon footprint of each combination is compared,
then there is a stark difference between meat-heavy meals and plant-heavy meals, and locally
produced, organic ingredients and other ingredients, clearly implying the climate benefits of
changing one’s diet (Stehfest, ​et al​., 2009). While it is good to know that switching to sustainable
practices which have a lower carbon footprint is essential, from a practical point of view it also
has to make business sense for restaurants to adopt such practices. There exist many trade-off at
each stage, when it comes to choosing sustainable practices over conventional practices.
Freeman (2011) elaborates it: ‘For traditional restaurants, the primary barriers to implementing
sustainable business practices are cost, lack of awareness, and space.’ (p. i) There are many
instances in which it is evident that many organisations achieve their business goals while
reducing their environmental impact, but there are also many cases where environmental benefit
comes at the expense of the financial health of the businesses (Wu & Pagell, 2011). A lot of the
trade-offs depend on the context of each of the businesses and a lot of uncertainty is involved as
making choices in that setting is dynamic and complex (Wu & Pagell, 2011). Some patrons are
willing to pay more to purchase products with a lower environmental impact while others are not
(Laroche​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​2001;​ ​Hu​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​2010).

14
Small and medium enterprises (SME’s) comprise the majority of businesses in the restaurant
industry. Seventy percent of all restaurants are classified as small businesses; 91 percent of all
restaurants have fewer than 50 employees (NRA, 2010). SME’s have not traditionally engaged in
sustainable business practices because of owner and employee attitudes, varied opinions on
environmental matters, cost barriers to implementing environmental management, and lack of
financial​ ​incentives​ ​to​ ​purchase​ ​high​ ​efficiency​ ​appliances​ ​(Bubna-Litic​ ​&​ ​de​ ​Leeuw,​ ​1999).

Effect​ ​of​ ​information​ ​on​ ​environmental​ ​behaviour

Since the turn of the millennium there has been an upsurge in the mainstream availability of data
and information about the effects of climate change and also about its causes (Moftakhari ​et al​.,
2015; Raper & Braithwaite, 2006). Inspite of this there has been quite a debate about the
effective dissemination and penetration levels of this information in the general public. This has
resulted in many pinning the lack of awareness in the general public as the major cause behind
the surprising apathy that is reflected in the inaction in terms of change in behaviour of the
general public to sustainable practices. The formal name given to this theory apparently driving
the inaction is known as the information deficit model (Sturgis & Allum, 2004). There is ample
reason to consider it quite implausible that the well informed and poorly informed citizens go
about taking decisions the same way (Sturgis & Allum, 2004). It is known in the social sciences
as the knowledge or information “deficit model” and claims that people simply don’t have
enough information; according to this model this deficit needs to be filled. Once people
understand, they will be motivated to act on the problem according to this model (Sturgis &
Allum, 2004; Blake, 1999; Wesley Schultz, 2002). In studies of the ​public understanding of
science​, the information deficit model (or simply deficit model) or science literacy/knowledge
deficit model attributes public scepticism or hostility to science and technology to a lack of
understanding, resulting from a lack of information. It is associated with a division between
experts who have the information and non-experts who do not. The model implies that
communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to
non-experts. The deficit model assumes the public to be inherently ignorant or hostile to science

15
and technology (Bucchi, 2008). Dickson (2005) elaborates this by saying: ‘This belief has two
aspects. The first is the idea that public scepticism towards modern science and technology is
caused primarily by a lack of adequate knowledge about science. Related to this is the idea that,
by providing sufficient information about modern science and technology to overcome this lack
of knowledge — or “knowledge deficit” — the public will change its mind and decide that both
science​ ​and​ ​the​ ​technology​ ​that​ ​emerges​ ​from​ ​it​ ​are​ ​“good​ ​things”.’​ ​(p.​ ​2)
It is imperative to mention here that the information deficit model that was originally proposed
has been widely discredited, but many theories and models have sprung up since which have
been built up on fragments derived from the discredited model. Owens (2000) states: ‘There
could hardly be a clearer demonstration of the flaws in the information deficit model that the
persistent refusal of the public to have their allegedly irrational conceptions of risk ‘corrected’ by
providing​ ​them​ ​more​ ​information.’​ ​(p.​ ​1142)
Somewhat later in the paper, Owens (2000) also says that ‘[…] there should not be great surprise
to find that cultural rules and social networks have a greater influence on translating underlying
concern into environmental action than the availability of scientific information.’ (p. 1143).
Dickson (2005) adds to it: ‘It is also correct to point out that the hypothesis on which the model
is based is highly flawed. Increased knowledge about modern science does not necessarily lead
to greater enthusiasm for science-based technologies. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to
the contrary. For example, the more knowledge an individual has about a potentially dangerous
technology (such as nuclear power or genetic engineering), the more concern he or she may well
feel​ ​about​ ​that​ ​technology.’​ ​(p.​ ​2)
In the neighbourhood of the same topic, Kahneman’s highly regarded 2011-book, ​Thinking, Fast
and Slow​, walks the reader through his decades of research showing that humans think in two
fundamentally different ways (Kahneman, 2011). The first, which he calls “System One”
thinking, is automatic, fast, and easy. It is based on impressions and feelings, and is often
hard-wired through evolutionary processes. “System Two” thinking, on the other hand, is what
we generally think of as reasoning: controlled, effortful, slow, and orderly. It is a deliberate
process that requires attention and mental work. This attention and mental work that is required
is precisely what is dictated by the other contextual factors. In fact, even contrary to the

16
traditional deficit model, (Kellstedt, 2008) found that more informed respondents both feel less
personally​ ​responsible​ ​for​ ​global​ ​warming​ ​and​ ​also​ ​show​ ​less​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​global​ ​warming.
Newer deficit models acknowledged the fact that there are other factors that affect the
behavioural attitudes of people than just the exposure to information. Among these models, the
contextual model and the low information rationality models will be interesting to talk about for
this particular research. The contextual model will be discussed elaborately in the the
development of the conceptual model of this research as well but the gist is that it is an attempt
to fill the gaping holes which were the main reasons why the traditional information deficit
model failed: to take into account the mediation effect caused by the contextual factors such as
social networks, previous disposition, trust, et cetera. On the other hand, Low information
rationality is a ​social theory that states that people are ​information consumers with limited
benefits and time for processing and understanding information (Popkin, 1991). This theory
suggests the behaviour of lay people to seek and gain in-depth understanding of complex issues
is influenced highly by their perceived cost-benefit analysis of the effort to be invested into the
act of understanding (Scheufele, 2006). In other words, their previous perception of the issue at
hand is what determines their further understanding or interest in the information about the issue.
This suggests that it is the perception or disposition of the people towards the issue that has to be
changed first in-order for them to take the information about the issue to translate it into effective
action.

Sustainable​ ​behaviour​ ​in​ ​food​ ​choices

With technological advancement, the data about the carbon footprint of the different food that we
consume is getting more and more accessible as well as clearer. There are multiple sources of
data which now point to the fact that animal products/ingredients, especially meats, have a
considerably higher hand in causing greenhouse gas emissions than plant-based
products/ingredients (EWG report, 2011; FAO 2006; Stehfest ​et al​., 2009). On a smaller, albeit
important, impact level in terms of reduction in , consuming locally sourced seasonal, indigenous
produce is also incrementally better for the environment (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; ​DeWeerdt,

17
2009). While there are various other criteria that can be used to evaluate a restaurant’s behaviour
as sustainable or not, these are the criteria that are kept in focus while evaluating the sustainable
behaviour​ ​of​ ​restaurants​ ​in​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​research.

Conceptual​ ​model
The “contextual” deficit model and the theories discussed above will be addressed in this
chapter, along with models further developed to zero-in on the specific exploration of this
research. The basic premise of that the research explores is that is it just information that
determines the behavioural attitude of people or are there many other factors which weigh in to
tip the scale in any which way. Various theories and models relevant to this premise will be
discussed and then a boundaried/restrained conceptual model will be developed in this chapter
on​ ​which​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​research​ ​will​ ​focus​ ​on.
There has been much wonderment about the disconnect between the alarm people claim over
issues of climate change otherwise and the reluctance to turn the sense of alarm into meaningful
action in their domains (Dunlap, 1998; Worcester, 1997). This phenomenon is what is being
explored in the context of adoption of sustainable practices in the operations of the restaurant
business keeping the carbon footprint information provided by various LCA tools as the
benchmark for sustainability (Sturgis & Allum, 2004). As mentioned before, we will be
discussing the many factors that have been said to mediate the effect of information on behaviour
by various bodies of research, and decide on the relevant ones as boundaries for this particular
research. On one hand, there is much evidence which state that knowing more about global
warming and climate change increases overall concern about the risks of those issues, and this
increased concern leads to a greater perceived efficacy & responsible to help solving them
(Milfont, 2012) . But as discussed in the previous chapters, there is much evidence that shows
that mere exposure to knowledge does not ensure behavioural change, and thus the ‘’contextual’’
deficit model was developed. The context can be shaped by a plethora of factors. Owens (2000)
states: ‘Climate change may not be seen as a discrete problem, scientifically and physically

18
defined, but as part of a wider concern about humanity’s exploitative relationship with nature,
and​ ​about​ ​global​ ​equity​ ​and​ ​fairness​ ​(Darier​ ​&​ ​Schule,​ ​1999).’​ ​(p.​ ​1143)
The contextual model highlights the complexity of the inter-related factors that mediate the
effect on information on behaviour, as well as the interacting nature of the knowledge-attitude
interface (Sturgis & Allum, 2004). There is good evidence that people do not learn things in
isolation (Evans & Durent 1995; Miller 1983; Miller 1998; Popkin & Dimock 1999). People
select risks to worry about according to the norms of their social milieu rather than responding to
supposedly​ ​more​ ​objective​ ​hazards​ ​(Sturgis​ ​&​ ​Allum,​ ​2004).
The values that one has imbibed as part of their own experiences, belief systems, societal
conditioning, culture of upbringing etc seem to matter immensely when it comes to shaping a
person’s environmental attitudes. In recent years, a number of studies have examined the link
between values and environmental attitudes (Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002;
Wesley​ ​Schultz​ ​&​ ​Zelezny,​ ​2003;​ ​Stern​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​1999)
The complexity of environmental issues also makes it easier to be a polarising topic depending
on the priorities that a person has. Proponents or opponents feel different aspects to be important.
(Peters, 2000). Sturgis and Allum (2004) add to this: ‘It is quite clear that culture, economic
factors, social & political views and worldviews are all important in determining the public’s
attitude towards science.’ (p. 7) Kellstedt’s theory (2008) is that the three forces - informedness,
confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy - are related in interesting & unexpected ways and
exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change.
Reinforcing the “contextual” deficit model, Owens (2000 ) says that ‘[…] a substantial body of
social-scientific research suggests that, while greater knowledge may be worthwhile in its own
right, barriers to action do not primarily lie in the lack of information or understanding. More
important mediating factors are the framing of problems, social & political context, and personal
&​ ​institutional​ ​constraints.’​ ​(p.​ ​1143)
In response to uncertain and risky situations, humans have a tendency to focus and simplify their
decision-making. Individuals responding to a threat are likely to rely on one action, even when it
provides​ ​only​ ​incremental​ ​protection​ ​or​ ​risk​ ​reduction​ ​and​ ​may​ ​not​ ​be​ ​the​ ​most​ ​effective​ ​option.

19
A sizeable amount of psychological research on environmental attitudes has focused on values,
which are viewed as underlying determinants of more specific attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs
(Olson & Zanna, 1993). About this Owens (2000) remarks: ‘Mostly people do not engage in
environmentally friendly behaviour, except in relatively painless ways: few take actions that
entail personal inconvenience, let alone those that involve changes to their own lifestyle; travel
patterns are pertinent case in point. The social, cultural and institutional context is crucial.
Important obstacles to sustained environmental action include not only real constraints of time
and resources but a feeling that individuals have neither the prime responsibility to take action
nor​ ​the​ ​agency​ ​to​ ​have​ ​much​ ​effect.’​ ​(p.​ ​1143)
The apathy stemming from personal constraints as well as values gets rationalized in the form of
low belief in the efficacy of personal action. This in-turn translates to shifting the blame to other
bodies in society such as the government. Many people believe that governments should deliver
appropriate policy frameworks but have little faith that they will (Blake, 1999). Besides all the
abovementioned factors, there is also research which suggests that perceived norms also play a
big role in environmental behaviour. Research showing a positive association between normative
beliefs and many different behaviour also can be found among studies utilizing the theory of
reasoned​ ​action​ ​and​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​of​ ​planned​ ​behaviour.​ ​ ​(Wesley​ ​Schultz,​ ​2002)
The theory of planned behaviour proves that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control
predict behavioural intentions, which in turn lead to behaviour. (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen
1975). Subjective norms refer to a person’s perceptions of the social pressure to perform a
behaviour. They are an individual’s perception of how other people or groups think he or she
should act (Wesley Schultz, 2002). Subjective norms have been found to be strong predictors of
a variety of behaviours (Ajzen, 1991). Wesley Schultz and Tyra (2000) have also found that
descriptive normative beliefs were strong predictors of recycling behaviour and that normative
beliefs about people closer to self were stronger predictors than beliefs about those who are more
socially​ ​distant.
Among all these different factors which can affect one’s behaviour in light of information, it is
mainly values and constraints that this research broadly restricts itself to. Although there are
several traditions of values research, particularly applied to the study of environmental issues,

20
many studies in recent years have made use of Schwartz’s model of human values. (Schwartz
1992, 1994) shows a broad model for classifying the dimensions of values, with 56 value items
representing ten universal value types. Although efficient in defining the values that might affect
behavioural change into broad categories, Shwartz’s model cannot be used as it is for developing
the conceptual model as it still is too broad with respect to the specific study of behaviour in
operational​ ​practices​ ​of​ ​a​ ​restaurant​ ​in​ ​light​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information.
The factors affecting behaviour in the operational practices of a restaurant in light of carbon
footprint information are a function of all the factors that have been discussed in the theories,
models, and research discussed above. To tie all the factors up and bring them under generic
terms relevant for the decision-making process in restaurants, the proposition of people working
on mental models is what would be appropriate. CRED (2009) defines this as follows: ‘A
mental model represents a person’s thought process for how something works (i.e., a person’s
understanding of the surrounding world). Mental models, which are based on often-incomplete
facts, past experiences, and even intuitive perceptions, help shape actions and behavior, influence
what people pay attention to in complicated situations, and define how people approach and
solve problems.’ (p. 3) Kempton ​et al​. (1995), and Macnaghten and Urry (1998) say that lay
people have non-specific mental model of environmental risks. Mental models or habits of
thought are among the most critical barriers to change (Moser & Dilling, 2007). It is, thus,
important to mend incorrect mental models of the causes of a problem to predisposing people to
actions that protect the climate. However, “more information” typically does not generate action
on issues of societal import, and it is possible for information and understanding to become
substitutes for action: individuals absorbing information sometimes feel that they have actually
“done​ ​something”​ ​simply​ ​by​ ​having​ ​learned​ ​about​ ​a​ ​problem.​ ​(Moser​ ​&​ ​Dilling,​ ​2007).

According to CRED (2009), ‘[…] People usually have some relevant knowledge and beliefs that
help them interpret new information in order to reach conclusions. sometimes a mental model
serves as a filter, resulting in selective knowledge “uptake,” ​i.e​., people seek out or absorb only
the information that matches their mental model, confirming what they already believe about an
issue.’ (p. 3) In other words, how people interpret knowledge is deeply inflicted by confirmation

21
bias: ‘A confirmation bias makes people look for information that is consistent with what they
already think, want, or feel, leading them to avoid, dismiss, or forget information that will
require them to change their minds and, quite possibly, their behavior. People often exhibit a
strong preference for their existing mental models about climate change, making them
susceptible​ ​to​ ​confirmation​ ​biases​ ​that​ ​lead​ ​them​ ​to​ ​misinterpret​ ​scientific​ ​data.’​ ​(p.​ ​4)
Having talked about the mental models and the confirmation bias that people have, the stances
that people hold as a result of these mental models are basically the basis for people’s disposition
towards climate change - its causes, its urgency, the efficacy of their actions, et cetera. These are
what shape the people’s environmental persona, per se. Some of the terms that are widely used to
describe this include environmental attitudes, environmental concern, and environmental
worldview (Dunlap & Jones, 2002a, 2002b; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Wesley Schultz &
Zelezny, 2003). The term environmental concern is used to refer to the affect associated with
environmental problems and the term environmental attitude to refer to the collection of beliefs,
affect, and behavioral intentions a person holds regarding environmentally related activities or
issues. From this perspective, environmental concern is one aspect of an environmental attitude.
The term environmental worldview to refer to a person’s belief about humanity’s relationship
with nature (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap ​et al​., 2000). These three terms ensnare many of
the value based factors that mediate the influence of information on behaviour. With the scope of
this research in mind, the assumption is made that the concern for environmental impact of the
food being served by the restaurants - represented by the combined inference from the existing
position on the brand identity spectrum and the environmental concern of the restaurants gleaned
from the semi-structured interviews - is a good encapsulation of these three terms. Concern
mediates the influence of knowledge on perceived personal efficacy (Milfont, 2012), which in
turn affects behaviour, and that is a relevant point to make with respect to the exploration of this
research as well as the broad term of “Environmental concern/disposition” that it uses as a
mediating factor to be evaluated. The denotation of the term with respect to the scope of this
particular​ ​research​ ​will​ ​be​ ​defined​ ​right​ ​after​ ​the​ ​introduction​ ​of​ ​ ​the​ ​conceptual​ ​model.
On a sweeping glance across the the width of the theories, models,and research about the
different possible mediating factors, two categorical segments of factors roughly emerge: value

22
based factors, and constraint based factors. The value based factors being represented by
“Environmental concern/disposition”, the research includes the constraint based factors
mentioned before under the broad terms of “Costs/budget” and “Effort/time”. These two terms
will also be defined after the introduction of the conceptual model. With these three broad terms
as the boundaries of the mediating factors that this research mainly focusses on, the conceptual
model​ ​is​ ​developed​ ​to​ ​look​ ​like​ ​(see​ ​Figure​ ​1).

Figure​ ​1:​ ​Conceptual​ ​model​ ​of​ ​this​ ​research

The conceptual model depicts the research proposition that the the effect that the carbon footprint
information has on eliciting sustainable behaviour in the operational stages - ​i.e., the
procurement of ingredients, the usage of ingredients, and the sales/communication of dishes - in
restaurants, depends on the the various contextual factors among which the ones focussed on by
this​ ​research​ ​are​ ​termed​ ​as​ ​Environmental​ ​concern/disposition,​ ​Cost/Budget,​ ​and​ ​Effort/time.
The terms used in the mediating factors introduced above are be defined for usage in this
particular​ ​research,​ ​as​ ​follows:

Environmental concern/disposition​: The pre-existing disposition of the restaurant towards the

environmental impact of the decisions that are made in the operational stages of the restaurant,
which is a collective function of many value based factors such as belief systems, perceived

23
efficacy, trust, environmental attitude, environmental worldview, environmental concern, et
cetera. This is planned to be evaluated by a combined inference of the brand identity of the
restaurant- judged by how the restaurant projects itself in its brand image, how it places
sustainability in its brand communication, are the dishes being sold as locally sourced/seasonal,
is the menu carbon emission intensive or environment-friendly, et cetera - and some deliberated
questions​ ​in​ ​the​ ​semi-structured​ ​interview.
Cost/budget​: Among the constraint based factors, the financial aspect stands out as one of the
conspicuous factor which is interesting to be explored as a factor that might have a big mediating
effect. In a world where the consumption of meat is rising, and majority of people in the world
being mainly meat eaters, it comes off as a challenge to cater dishes which are plant-based and
have lesser carbon footprint. The budget of a restaurant, the money it has, the size of the
respective restaurant business, the profits associated with market demand etc are the constraint
based factors whose mediating effects are being explored under this term. These are evaluated
mainly​ ​through​ ​the​ ​inferences​ ​from​ ​the​ ​semi-structured​ ​interviews.
Effort/time​: Among some other constraint based factors, the convenience aspect is also
interesting to be explored as a factor that might have a sizeable mediating effect. According to
where a restaurant is located, it might not always be the easy to find locally sourced plant-based
ingredients throughout the year, which also suits the menu needs of the respective restaurants.
The time and effort needed to source the ingredients, availability of ingredients, suitable
suppliers etc are the constraint based factors whose mediating effects are being explored under
this​ ​term.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​evaluated​ ​mainly​ ​through​ ​the​ ​inferences​ ​from​ ​the​ ​semi-structured​ ​interviews.

Research​ ​Question
With the scope of the case been determined, the boundaries of the case are to be defined. A case
which is too broad also runs a risk of being vague. In order to avoid this problem, several
authors, including Yin (2003) and Stake (1995), have suggested that placing boundaries on a
case can prevent this explosion from occurring. Baxter (2008) elaborates this: ‘Binding the case
ensures that the study remains reasonable in scope. The establishment of boundaries in a

24
qualitative case study design is similar to the development of inclusion and exclusion criteria for
sample selection in a quantitative study. The difference is that these boundaries also indicate the
breadth​ ​and​ ​depth​ ​of​ ​the​ ​study​ ​and​ ​not​ ​simply​ ​the​ ​sample​ ​to​ ​be​ ​included.’​ ​(p.​ ​547)
The boundaries placed on the research are the categories that will be tested as having any
mediating effect on the carbon footprint information will be limited to to the constraints which
are defined as “costs/budget” and “time/effort”, in addition to the factor of “Environmental
concern/disposition” gleaned through semi-structured interviews and also the general study of
the perceived position of the respective restaurants on the Brand Identity spectrum. Another
boundary imposed is that only restaurants will be tested in the food and beverage industry.
Additionally, a boundary was set that the practices in operations of the restaurants will be
evaluated/analysed on the basis of the decisions taken and the intentions behind those decisions
in just the three stages of procurement of ingredients, usage of ingredients, and
sales/communications of dishes. The yardstick to determine whether practices in the operational
stages are sustainable or not are limited to select practices- involving lesser animal based
products, higher plant-based products, seasonally sourced ingredients, and locally sourced
ingredients- which, as have been discussed previously, result in lower carbon footprint of the
restaurant​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dishes​ ​it​ ​serves.

Keeping the boundaries in mind, the research question developed for this particular research is as
follows:
What role does the carbon footprint information of different food ingredients play in eliciting
sustainable behaviour in the operational stages of restaurants in terms of the resultant food that
they​ ​serve,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​different​ ​contexts​ ​of​ ​different​ ​restaurants?

Objective​: With respect to the context that the respective restaurants are present in, evaluate the
role played by the carbon footprint information of food ingredients as a basis for business
decisions to be made on in the operational stages of a restaurant, with the aim to reduce the
overall carbon footprint of the food that restaurant serves. These operational stages can be
broadly categorized into three stages: Procurement of ingredients, Usage of ingredients to make

25
the food, and Sales/Communication of dishes to consumers. The decision currently being taken
for each of these stages for each respective restaurant business, along with the thought process
behind those decisions, are aimed to be implored. Additionally, the research strives to investigate
the multi-dimensional trade-offs in each of these categories between the multiple directions
which​ ​have​ ​been​ ​contemplated​ ​in​ ​which​ ​a​ ​decision​ ​could​ ​go​ ​at​ ​each​ ​stage.

Relevance​: Carbon footprint information are one of the ways by which the product of restaurants
as a business- dishes- can be broken down and be accounted for their environmental impact. It is
imperative to evaluate the role that the tool, that this carbon footprint information is, plays for
these businesses in regulating the carbon footprint of their activities in order for the restaurant
businesses to objectively know where they stand in the responsibility spectrum in terms of
environmental impact. It is also important to know what is the cost to value ratio in each
trade-off to opt for the practices which have a lower carbon footprint in order to realistically map
and enable a transition. Hence it is relevant to know the role that the carbon footprint information
of the food ingredients plays in eliciting sustainable behaviour in terms of making decisions
which favour lower carbon footprint, and also the factors which affect the impact of the
information on behaviour. This will help in finding the most effective ways possible to get
restaurant businesses to take sustainable decisions in the operational stages and also throw light
on​ ​the​ ​best​ ​ways​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information​ ​can​ ​be​ ​employed.

Keeping in mind the conceptual model and research question, along with its intended objectives,
the research evaluates role of the carbon footprint information by testing the proposition that it is
not just the awareness of the carbon footprint information that brings in sustainable behaviour in
the operational stages of the restaurant businesses, but that it is mediated by the different
contextual factors. This proposition tests whether the carbon footprint information plays a
transformational role or an empowering role. A transformational role would be if the information
in itself would be enough to cause behavioral change. An empowering role would be when
according to the different contextual mediating factors the information is used as a crutch or a
support to fulfil the pre-existing intentions. Based on all the previous research about effect of

26
information on behaviour, this research proposes that the carbon footprint information plays an
empowering​ ​role​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​a​ ​transformational​ ​one.

Proposition​: The carbon footprint information in itself does not elicit sustainable behaviour in
the operational stages of the restaurant business, but it plays an empowering/supportive role to
the restaurants which already want to take sustainable decisions in the operational stages and
supplements their decisions to do so to a varying degree depending on the various mediating
contextual​ ​factors.

Methodology

This section elaborates on the method of research conducted for the thesis. It provides an
overview of the approach to the research topic leading to the ​research design. Then, it details ​the
research methodology with the various steps, such as the data collection process as well as the
design​ ​and​ ​implementation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​multiple​ ​case​ ​study​ ​at​ ​the​ ​different​ ​restaurants.

27
Figure​ ​2:​ ​Step​ ​model​ ​framework​ ​(Source:​ ​Mayring,​ ​2000)

The​ ​step​ ​model​ ​framework​ ​(Figure​ ​2)​ ​provides​ ​a​ ​framework​ ​for​ ​the​ ​research​ ​method​ ​of​ ​the
thesis.​ ​The​ ​step​ ​model​ ​is​ ​used​ ​to​ ​breakdown​ ​the​ ​research​ ​into​ ​seven​ ​steps​ ​which​ ​have​ ​been
outlined​ ​and​ ​explained​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​3.

28
Figure​ ​3:​ ​Seven​ ​steps​ ​of​ ​research​ ​(Source:​ ​Mayring,​ ​2000)

The study began with a review of literature on the topics related to the study. This included
review of literature in Life-cycle assessment tools, Eco-labels and labelling, Relationship
between food and climate change, sustainable practices by restaurants and the associated
trade-offs, Effect of information on environmental behaviour, and Sustainable behaviour in food
choices. This lead to the research question for the study. Then the theoretical framework was
constructed with a proposition built based on the literature review to help answer the research

29
question. This followed with the design of the case study to test the proposition of the theoretical
framework. The data for the case was collected primarily through semi-structured interviews
with the relevant stakeholders involved. The analysis used triangulation of the data collected to
arrive​ ​at​ ​conclusions​ ​on​ ​the​ ​proposition​ ​and​ ​the​ ​research​ ​question.

Research​ ​Design

The qualitative research method of case study was chosen for this research. According to Baxter
(2008), ‘Qualitative case study methodology provides tools for researchers to study complex
phenomena within their contexts. […] It allows the researcher to explore individuals or
organizations, simple through complex interventions, relationships, communities, or programs
(Yin, 2003) and supports the deconstruction and the subsequent reconstruction of various
phenomena.’ (p. 544) As mentioned before, the aim of the research is to explore the role of
carbon footprint information in eliciting sustainable behaviour in the operational stages of
restaurant businesses, and also to explore the mediating effects of the defined contextual factors
to further understand the role. The methodology chosen to address and answer the research
question was the qualitative research methodology in the restaurant business. Again, Baxter
(2008) gives an argument: ‘It enables the researcher to gather data from a variety of sources and
to converge the data to illuminate the case.’ (p. 550) The nature of the research being explorative
and open-ended with a fixed set of criteria, it eliminated the possibility of a quantitative research
approach​ ​with​ ​a​ ​fixed​ ​questionnaire.​ ​Thus​ ​the​ ​qualitative​ ​approach​ ​was​ ​chosen.
Baxter (2008) adds: ‘One of the advantages of this approach is the close collaboration between
the researcher and the participant, while enabling participants to tell their stories.’ (p. 545)
Additionally, empirical research through the study of the decision-making processes in the
restaurant business with the thought process behind those decisions, along with the effects on
those because of carbon footprint information when seen in respect to the mediating contextual
factors​ ​would​ ​provide​ ​valuable​ ​real​ ​life​ ​context​ ​to​ ​the​ ​application​ ​of​ ​theoretical​ ​proposition.

30
Case​ ​Study​ ​Method

A case study can be defined as an empirical enquiry investigating a contemporary phenomenon

in its real-life context using multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1984). According to Zainal
(2007), ‘Case studies, in their true essence, explore and investigate contemporary real-life
phenomenon through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions,
and their relationships.’ (p. 1) The choice of the case study method thus allowed for the
exploration of the contributing factors of the sustainable behaviour in the decision-making
processes in the restaurant business in the context of the carbon footprint information. The
empirical data collected through qualitative study of the decision-making processes and the
intentions/drivers behind them through interviews with the key stakeholders involved provided
valuable practical insights on the topic. According to Baxter (2008), ‘Through the stories the
participants are able to describe their views of reality and this enables the researcher to better
understand​ ​the​ ​participants’​ ​actions.’​ ​(p.​ ​545)
A case study design should be considered when: (a) the focus of the study is to answer “how”
and “why” questions; (b) you cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; (c)
you want to cover contextual conditions because you believe they are relevant to the
phenomenon under study; or (d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and
context (Yin, 2003). For this particular research, the point about the focus of the study being
“how” and “why”, and the point about covering the contextual conditions are the most relevant
for choosing the case study design. The point about not manipulating the behaviour or answers of
the respondents is the weakest as the respondents, despite the cover of anonymity given to them
in the semi-structured interviews, had it in their interests to show their businesses in the best light
possible. This is indeed a limitation of this particular research and has been mentioned in the
later chapters. The search for new and better models to explain the firm requires methodologies
that can generate the new explanations through contact with the study object. Given the
limitations of quantitative approximations for building new theories, case studies are a
particularly​ ​useful​ ​methodology​ ​for​ ​research​ ​on​ ​firms​ ​(Reynoso,​ ​2010).

31
According to Baxter (2008), ‘As a basic foundation to achieve trustworthiness, novice
researchers have a responsibility to ensure that: (a) the case study research question is clearly
written, propositions (if appropriate to the case study type) are provided, and the question is
substantiated; (b) case study design is appropriate for the research question; (c) purposeful
sampling strategies appropriate for case study have been applied; (d) data are collected and
managed​ ​systematically;​ ​and​ ​(e)​ ​the​ ​data​ ​are​ ​analyzed​ ​correctly​ ​(Russell​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​2005).’​ ​(p.​ ​546)
These general principles have been tried to have been adhered to in this research as much as
possible, along with guidelines for a good case study design (Yazan, 2015), such as using “(a)
multiple sources of evidence (evidence from two or more sources, but converging on the same
set of facts or findings for the purpose of triangulation), (b) a case study database (a formal
assembly of evidence distinct from the final case study report which helps the novice researchers
understand how to handle or manage data), and (c) a chain of evidence. A hallmark of case study
research is the use of multiple data sources, a strategy which also enhances data credibility
(Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003). These “overriding principles” are conducive to data validation which
constitutes Yin’s first priority in every phase of the process to maximize the quality of the
inquiry.’ (p. 142) This particular research has carefully tried to keep these things in mind while
developing​ ​the​ ​case​ ​study​ ​design.

Case​ ​Study​ ​Design

The selection of a specific type of case study design will be guided by the overall study purpose.
Yin (2003) categorises cases broadly as being explanatory, exploratory, or descriptive, with there
being an additional dimension of category of either a single case study or a multiple case study
(Baxter, 2008, p. 547). The thesis aims to explore “how” are the specific contextual factors affect
the behavioural action in light of carbon footprint information. Hence, the category of case study
research of exploratory was most applicable as opposed to descriptive or explanatory. The
different​ ​categories​ ​and​ ​their​ ​definitions​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​table​ ​in​ ​Appendix​ ​I.
Yin (2003) also discusses different types of case studies comparatively, such as Single case
studies, Single case studies with embedded units, Multiple case studies, et cetera. Out of these, it

32
will be relevant to highlight the difference between the type “Single case with Embedded Units”
and “Multiple-Case studies”, in order to understand the choice of Multiple case study for this
specific research. Single Case with Embedded Units defined by Yin (2003) as a tool which
enables the analysis of different sub-units within a larger case in order to better illuminate the
single case, whereas Multiple-case studies are defined by Yin (2003) as a tool to understand the
similarities and differences between the different cases present in different contexts
comparatively​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​patterns,​ ​and​ ​develop​ ​theories.​ ​(Baxter,2008,​ ​p.​ ​550)
The multiple case study approach was chosen as against the single case study approach, also
because the former is considered more reliable and robust, as stated by Tellis (1997 in Zainal,
2007)): ‘a common criticism of case study method is its dependency on a single case exploration
making​ ​it​ ​difficult​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​a​ ​generalizing​ ​conclusion.’
An exploratory multiple case study is what has been employed to efficiently carry out the aim of
this research as the intervention planned did not have a single set of outcomes, but could go in
multiple directions as per the contextual situation, and also because multiple restaurants from
different parts of the Brand Identity spectrum had to be picked in order to test the proposition
appropriately.

Data​ ​Collection​ ​Methods

Data collection is an integral process of the case study method. According to Baxter (2008):
‘Although the opportunity to gather data from various sources is extremely attractive because of
the rigor and statistical robustness that can be associated with this approach, there are dangers.
One of them is the collection of overwhelming amounts of data that require management and
analysis. Often, researchers find themselves “lost” in the data. In order to bring some order to the
data collection a computerized data base is often necessary to organize and manage the
voluminous amount of data.’ (p. 554) Yin (1994) suggests three principles of data collection for
case​ ​studies:
1.​ ​Use​ ​multiple​ ​sources​ ​of​ ​data
2.​ ​Create​ ​a​ ​case​ ​study​ ​database
3.​ ​Maintain​ ​a​ ​chain​ ​of​ ​evidence

33
The data for the thesis was collected from literature review, study of the cases through
semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the decision processes in the respective
restaurants which were the cases for this research. The literature review included the study of
Life-cycle assessment tools, Eco-labels and labelling, Relationship between food and climate
change, sustainable practices by restaurants and the associated trade-offs, Effect of information
on environmental behaviour, and Sustainable behaviour in food choices. Baxter (2008) suggests
that potential data sources may include, but are not limited to: documentation, archival records,
interviews, physical artifacts, direct observations, and participant-observation. The cases were
studied with information obtained through semi-structured interviews provided at different
restaurants and discussions with relevant stakeholders. The “semi-structured interview” was the
type of interview process selected. This choice was made for two reasons. First, the research
boundaries of studying the decision processes in the stages of procurement of ingredients, usage
of ingredients, and sales/communication of ingredients lends a broad structure to study the
context. Second, the semi-structured process helped discover new insights and topics emerging
from the discussion in each stage by each different case with respect to the respective mediating
contextual factors. The semi-structured interviews were based on a general framework of
questions that was created for each of the operational stages. Two versions of the general
framework were developed. One was for restaurants that were not officially using any carbon
footprint information as part of their decision-making process, and the other one was for
restaurants that were already using carbon footprint information as part of their decision-making
process. The version made for the restaurants that are not using any LCA tools also included
questions on their awareness of carbon footprint information of different types of foods, their
implications on the environment, and the respondents consequent reactions on whether if they
thought this information was relevant to their businesses and the reasoning behind their answers.
To show the carbon footprint information about the different types of foods, two infographic
charts were shown to the respondents. These charts are included with the general framework of
questions in Appendix I. The version made for restaurants using carbon footprint information
was also translated into German as one of the respondents felt more comfortable having to look
at the framework in their native language while participating in the interview in English. All

34
three versions have been included in Appendix II. The interviews were explicitly promised to be
kept anonymous in order to maximise honesty in the respondents responses, as there is always
the chance of the tendency to represent the business one is associated with in good light,
especially when it comes to the matter of sustainability. The respondents have thus been coded,
along with the respective restaurants that they are speaking on behalf of, as shown in Appendix
III,​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​them​ ​anonymously.

Interview​ ​Respondent​ ​Selection,​ ​Protocol​ ​and​ ​Process

The selection criteria aimed to ensure that the list of respondents included stakeholders from
different parts of the brand identity spectrum of restaurants ranging from “fully commercial” -
with sustainability not being their focus - to “sustainability focussed” - with sustainability being
one​ ​of​ ​their​ ​main​ ​focus​ ​(see​ ​Figure​ ​4).

Figure​ ​4:​ ​Brand​ ​identity​ ​spectrum

The discernment of how the restaurants positioned themselves on the Brand Identity spectrum
was made solely on the direct interpretation of how much of a focus did the restaurants put on
the aspects of sustainability in their brand image (the focus on sustainability, environmental
impact of their food etc in their CSR or website communication or vision/mission/values) and
their menu (whether more plant-based ingredients were used or more meat-based ingredients
were used; whether the menu communicated any emphasis on environmental impact of the food
in terms of carbon footprint, local sourcing, seasonal sourcing, et cetera). Although an attempt
was made to get enough respondents from each part of the spectrum, appropriately representing
each section, the response rate has been quite low. This is recognized as a limitation of this
particular research and has been discussed in the later chapters. The research in total received

35
seven respondent restaurants. The respondent restaurants, according to the first impression from
their​ ​brand​ ​identity,​ ​include:
1. A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​mexican​ ​restaurant​ ​owned​ ​by​ ​a​ ​big​ ​hospitality​ ​company.
2. A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​pizza​ ​restaurant​ ​chain.
3. A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​casual​ ​dining​ ​restaurant.
4. A​ ​commercial​ ​sit-down​ ​restaurant.
5. A vegetarian/vegan restaurant with emphasis on sustainably grown and locally sourced
ingredients.
6. A​ ​cafe/restaurant​ ​which​ ​places​ ​emphasis​ ​on​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​its​ ​dishes.
7. A burger restaurant fast food chain which places emphasis on carbon footprint of its
dishes.

As mentioned previously, each of these restaurants along with its representative has been given a
code for the sake of reference. The list of respondent restaurants along with their codes and also
their position on the Brand Identity spectrum has been included in Appendix IV. Each of the
three operational stages of the restaurant business were treated as different elements. As
discussed before, two versions of a general framework of the questions for each element was
then constructed. The representatives from each restaurant was selected such that they were an
authority capable of speaking about the decision-making process in all three operational stages.
Each representative was interviewed on all three of the elements. Four of the representatives
were interviewed over the phone and the remaining three were interviewed in person, depending
on​ ​the​ ​logistical/geographical​ ​constraints.

Thus a qualitative research method was chosen with multiple case study and semi-structured
interviews to study the topic and gain insights and knowledge from the stakeholders involved.
One of the disadvantages of the case study method, as stated by (Yin, 1984), is that there is
always a possibility of a bias in the answers of the respondents in terms of the organisations
being asked interviewed about. Another bias could enter the equation due to the framing of the
questions in the interview as well as the subjective interpretations of the responses by the

36
interviewer. This could be a limitation of the study as the case study is based on a limited
respondents as well. Thus, this is an area for future research to study higher number of
restaurants from each part of an even more widely spread Brand Identity spectrum to reduce the
bias​ ​component.​ ​This​ ​limitation,​ ​among​ ​others,​ ​has​ ​been​ ​discussed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​later​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​thesis.

Data​ ​Analysis
Yin (2003) defines that analysis ‘[...] consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, testing, or
otherwise recombining both quantitative and qualitative evidence to address the initial
propositions of a study.’ (p. 109) On the other hand, Stake (1995) defines analysis as: ‘a matter
of giving meaning to first impressions as well as to final compilations.’ (p. 71) According to
Yazan (2015): ‘He capitalizes on researcher's impressions as the main source of data and making
sense of them as the analysis. Although he recognizes the use of analysis protocols “that help
[researchers] draw systematically from previous knowledge and cut down on misperception,” he
gives precedence to intuition and impression rather than guidance of the protocol (Stake, 1995​).
Stake describes two ​strategic ways to analyze data: Categorical Aggregation and Direct
Interpretation,​ ​which​ ​he​ ​presents​ ​as​ ​two​ ​general​ ​strategies​ ​to​ ​handle​ ​case​ ​study​ ​data.’​ ​(p.144)
In this particular research, a mixture of both the approaches has been taken in terms of the
analysis of the data collected through the semi-structured interviews, but as the contexts which
were being explored were quite open-ended, the analysis leans more towards the Stakian
approach​ ​than​ ​the​ ​Yinian​ ​approach.
According to Baxter (2008), ‘Both Yin and Stake recognize the importance of effectively
organizing data. The advantage of using a database to accomplish this task is that raw data are
available for independent inspection. Using a database improves the reliability of the case study
as it enables the researcher to track and organize data sources including notes, key documents,
tabular materials, narratives, photographs, and audio files can be stored in a database for easy
retrieval at a later date. A database of the comprehensive notes taken during the interviews was
diligently​ ​maintained​ ​during​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​research.’​ ​(p.​ ​554)

37
The database of notes collected of the semi-structured interviews conducted then went through
multiple iterations of open coding in order to internalise and understand the content of the
interviews thoroughly. The axial coding was then done according to the codes developed
according to the two versions of the general framework of the questions for the interviews. The
list of axial codes associated with the general framework questions can be seen in Appendix V.
The corresponding inference codes were developed, with the technique of selective coding, using
the same frameworks and the axial codes in order to refine and categorise the inferences to be
derived from the answers to the respective questions in the semi-structured interviews. The
inference codes were developed so that the interpretations and inferences from the multiple
questions can be clearly translated and connected to the relevant objectives to be explored by this
particular research. The list of inference codes used to categorise the results of the interviews and
their connection with the mediating factors defined to be explored in this research can be seen in
Appendix​ ​VI.

While conducting the analysis of the data collected and linked, I have kept in mind what Baxter
(2008) elaborates on: ‘Yin briefly describes five techniques for analysis: pattern matching,
linking data to propositions, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic models, and
cross-case synthesis. Among these techniques, the techniques of linking data to proposition and
explanation building have been employed in this research. The data collected in the interviews
have been linked to the defined proposition of the research and then explanation has been built
around the same to come to a well analysed conclusion. One danger associated with the analysis
phase is that each data source would be treated independently and the findings reported
separately. This is not the purpose of a case study. Rather, must ensured that the data are
converged in an attempt to understand the overall case, not the various parts of the case, or the
contributing​ ​factors​ ​that​ ​influence​ ​the​ ​case.’​ ​(p.​ ​554)
Baxter (2008) continues telling that: ‘[…] Yin (2003) suggests six methods for reporting a case
study. These include: linear, comparative, chronological, theory building, suspense, and
unsequenced.’ (p. 555) Among these six methods, comparative method of reporting a case study
has been employed in this particular research. As the proposition of the research to be tested is an

38
explorative one in nature, a comparative method of reporting benefits in seeing the similarities
and differences that different contexts of the different cases have on the sustainable behaviour in
light​ ​of​ ​the​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information.

Results
The semi-structured interviews which were recorded in the database mainly in the form of
comprehensive notes. As mentioned before, the notes then went through iterations of open
coding and memoing. The final, selectively coded, inferences were then connected to the three
contextual factors whose mediating effects this research aims to explore on the on sustainable
behaviour in the operational stages of a restaurant in light of carbon footprint information. The
three​ ​broad​ ​contextual​ ​factors​ ​being​ ​explored,​ ​as​ ​defined​ ​in​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​chapters​ ​are:
● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition
● Cost/budget
● ​ ​Effort/time
These three broad contextual factors were explored by deliberated discussions via
semi-structured interviews which probed for insights on these factors and then their consequent
effect on the carbon footprint information, through the three defined operational stages of
Procurement of ingredients, Usage of ingredients, and Sales/communication of dishes. The
results are also reported for each respondent restaurant on the “role that carbon footprint
information” plays for the respective restaurant inferred from the semi-structured interview.
After analyzing the categorized data from the semi-structured interviews, the respective results
of each restaurant are presented as an analysed inference for each of the three broad contextual
mediating​ ​factors,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​their​ ​definitions​ ​for​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​research.
The results of the interviews for each of the respondent restaurant is presented below, headed by
their​ ​respective​ ​codes​ ​(see​ ​Appendix​ ​III).

39
Res01
A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​mexican​ ​restaurant​ ​owned​ ​by​ ​a​ ​big​ ​hospitality​ ​company
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is low,
with sustainability not being the focus of the restaurant. It is inferred from the interview that the
menu is what dictates most of the decision in the operational stages of the business. The menu
development process itself is driven by the perceived market demand by the restaurant. The
profits of the restaurant are mentioned to be the highest priority. Sustainability is mentioned as a
certain concern for the business but the action through choices in ingredients is not what fits with
the restaurants beliefs. Compliance with all environmental regulations, and efficient use of
resources such as electricity, water, and gas is what is considered sufficient to mitigate the
restaurant's environmental concern. It was explicitly mentioned that sustainability was not one of
the​ ​driving​ ​pillars​ ​of​ ​the​ ​business.
Cost/budget:
The quality of ingredients matter the most and take primary precedence followed closely by costs
and budgeting in the decision-making processes. Sourcing of the products is not of concern as
long as the quality and price levels are met by supplier. Infact price stability and quality of
ingredients are amongst the main criteria to choose a supplier. As they are one of the bigger
buyers, they have bargaining power hence they do not have much trouble getting ingredients that
are chosen based on the profit based demand and menu. They agree that scientifically
plant-based ingredients may be better for the environment over meat-based ingredients but that is
not an economically viable decision for them as the demands of their audience is meat-based,
hence they say it will not fit with the beliefs of the restaurant. The plant-based, pro-environment
market​ ​is​ ​a​ ​small​ ​one​ ​and​ ​hence​ ​is​ ​not​ ​an​ ​attractive​ ​one​ ​for​ ​their​ ​restaurant,​ ​they​ ​mention.
Effort/time:
Effort and time have a big influence on their decision-making process. They choose suppliers on
the basis of the highest service levels. They prefer ingredients to arrive in the kitchen as
pre-prepped as possible retaining the freshness and quality, in order to reduce processing time in

40
the kitchen. They prefer to pay a higher fee to suppliers instead of spending more time in
sourcing. Source of their ingredients do not matter in the decision-making process, and they also
do not include much seasonal ingredients on their fixed menu. They change their menus twice a
year with seasons but not due to sustainability reasons but due to marketing reasons. Uncertainty
in availability is something they do not prefer hence they do not focus much on the location or
the seasonality of ingredients. The demand of the audience does not place too much value in
sustainability in food ingredients hence it is not viable to put in the effort/time, the representative
mentions.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The information is appreciated as a factual information which is nice to stay updated about but it
is not seen as relevant for the decision-making process of the business, as the Environmental
concern/disposition towards the environmental impact of food is not high. The priorities of
making profits by fulfilling the perceived incumbent demands of the audience as well as
preference of convenience further magnifies the aforementioned stance towards carbon footprint
information.

Res02
A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​pizza​ ​restaurant​ ​chain.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is low,
with sustainability not being the focus of the restaurant. It is inferred from the interview that the
menu is what dictates most of the decision in the operational stages of the business. The menu
development process itself is driven by the perceived market demand by the restaurant. The
profits of the restaurant are mentioned to be the highest priority. They feel that environmental
concern and sustainability do not come under the domain of their business. The efficacy of the
impact that can be had by making transition to more plant-based, locally sourced, seasonal
ingredients​ ​by​ ​their​ ​business​ ​is​ ​doubted,​ ​and​ ​mentioned​ ​to​ ​not​ ​fit​ ​with​ ​the​ ​beliefs​ ​of​ ​the​ ​business.
Cost/budget:

41
There is a high demand for the vegetarian options on the menu as well as the non-vegetarian
options on the menu. One of the reasons for not placing emphasis on more plant-based options
despite the demand is that the restaurant sees no value in foregoing the audience which demands
the non-vegetarian options, but only sees it as a constriction to its profits. The representative
mentions that the sources of the ingredients are not considered in the decision-making, only the
costs and quality are. Although a strong mediating factor against transitioning to more
sustainable ingredient choices, the representative mentions that the strongest remains that the
restaurant​ ​does​ ​not​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​sustainability​ ​in​ ​food​ ​as​ ​the​ ​research.
Effort/time:
The restaurant does not use seasonal ingredients as availability of the ingredients throughout the
year for its fixed menu is of high priority. Seasonal products are used to develop specials menu,
but not keeping sustainability in mind, but for marketing purposes. The source of the ingredients
is not taken into consideration in the decision-making as the convenience of having a reliable
supplier​ ​with​ ​high​ ​service​ ​levels​ ​is​ ​of​ ​higher​ ​importance​ ​to​ ​the​ ​restaurant.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The information is not seen to be relevant for the business mainly because the restaurant does not
believe in the efficacy of transitioning to more sustainable ingredients in making a positive
impact to the environment. The restaurant also does not think sustainability to be under its
domain​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​food​ ​it​ ​serves.

Res03
A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​casual​ ​dining​ ​restaurant.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is
non-existent, with sustainability not being the focus of the restaurant. It is inferred from the
interview that the demand is what dictates most of the decision in the operational stages of the
business. It was explicitly mentioned that sustainability was not one of the driving pillars of the
business. The representative stated that restaurants serving sustainable food is believed to be a

42
separate type of restaurant as they cater to a different audience than the one they cater to. The
compliance with environmental regulations is what the restaurant believes to be sustainable
behaviour.
Cost/budget:
The audience that the restaurant caters to is mainly consisted by college students and young
graduates. The audience is highly price sensitive and is perceived to value meat-based dishes
more. The meat-based dishes can also be priced higher by the restaurant. The restaurant does not
believe that transitioning away from meat based ingredients will be profitable for their business.
Demand is what drive most decisions in the operational stages of the restaurant business. Profit
has highest priority for the restaurant. The source of the ingredients is not considered in the
decision-making​ ​process
Effort/time:
Sourcing ingredients locally and seasonally are ideas that the restaurant does not subscribe to as
it places convenience of hiring a reliable supplier offering high service levels at lower costs as a
better​ ​option​ ​for​ ​the​ ​business.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The role of carbon footprint information is irrelevant for this restaurant mainly because it does
not place environmental impact of its food as a factor to be considered in its decision-making
process. Cost/profits and convenience take a precedence and the decisions in the operational
stages​ ​revolve​ ​mainly​ ​around​ ​them.

Res04
A​ ​commercial​ ​sit-down​ ​restaurant.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is low to
moderate, with sustainability not being the focus of the restaurant. The menu does include some
dishes using seasonal ingredients but it is projected more as a health supplement than
sustainability. It is inferred from the interview that the restaurant does indeed place some

43
importance to environmental impact of the food that it serves but only in a limited way. The
restaurant believes in lowering the impact of the food that it serves on the environment by
sourcing its ingredients seasonally, but does not believe in transitioning away from or lowering
usage​ ​meat-based​ ​ingredients​ ​as​ ​it​ ​feels​ ​that​ ​meat​ ​is​ ​essential​ ​for​ ​nutrition.
Cost/budget:
The main priority of the restaurant when it comes to ingredients is quality. The restaurant prefers
to pay a higher price for a supplier if the supplier is reliable, with high service levels, and
delivers the quality of ingredients desired. The representative mentioned that it is always been
cheaper to buy in their experience but it mainly the availability of ingredients that is the issue.
The higher demand for meat-based ingredients does indeed play a role in their decision-making
process but more than the demand and the resulting profits, it is the preference of the restaurant
to serve meat-based dishes, as an essential part of the cuisine it wants to serve, that drives those
decisions.
Effort/time:
The representative explicitly mentioned that the relationship with the supplier is the highly
important for the restaurant as that decreases the time and effort taken to run the business
immensely for them. Hence, the relationship with the supplier as well as the quality of the
ingredients takes higher precedence than the source of the ingredients. The representative
mentioned the example of frequently flying in tomatoes used in the restaurant from Sicily, to
express the fact that quality takes precedence over local sourcing without a question. Local
sourcing and seasonal sourcing is done only for special occasions and events. The biggest
impediment to local and seasonal sourcing stated by the representative are availability, desired
quality​ ​level,​ ​and​ ​also​ ​the​ ​effort​ ​taken.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The carbon footprint information plays virtually no role in the decision-making of the restaurant
mainly because although the restaurant includes sustainable behaviour such as local and seasonal
sourcing as practices it employs, it does so not with sustainability in mind. As the representative
mentioned, sustainable practices that this research focuses on do not fit with the beliefs of the

44
restaurant,and the restaurant does not use sustainability as the driving pillars of its
decision-making.

Res05
A vegetarian/vegan restaurant with emphasis on sustainably grown and locally sourced
ingredients.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is present
to a considerable degree, with sustainability indeed being one of the focus points of the
restaurant. It is inferred from the interview that the menu is vegetarian and vegan because the
restaurant believes that it is the more ethical and sustainable way to eat and want to promote the
same.
Cost/budget:
Being a small sized, standalone restaurant, costs and budgeting has a big influence on the
decision-making process in the operational stages of the restaurant business. Although the
restaurant has developed the menu to be vegetarian and vegan, it is important for the restaurant
to stay true to the cuisine that it serves and it does give importance to using the necessary
ingredients. Hence it does not develop the menu according to the ingredients available locally
but the other way around. This causes some problems as the restaurant sources its ingredients
locally as much as possible but high costs for some ingredients are a problem. The general rule
that the restaurant follows is that if the costs are above 3 times the cost of alternative non-locally
sourced ingredient then it does not use it as it is economically not viable for the restaurant. The
perceived demand is not very high for vegetarian and vegan food, and the restaurant experiences
lower attendance especially from group events, but it chooses to stick to serving just vegetarian
and vegan dishes as it is one of main pillars driving the decision processes of the business. Even
the vegetables and fruits that it buys, after a certain threshold the lowering costs does take
precedence​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​sustainably​ ​grown​ ​produce.
Effort/time:

45
Availability is said to be the another challenge faced by the restaurant in terms of sustainably
grown produce. As the fixed menu cannot be changed, the seasonal sourcing is limited to the
specials menu. The specials menu is frequently built around the locally sourced, seasonal
produce that is available, as it can be changed more frequently. The sources for the ingredients
do have an influence on the decision-making process, but after a certain threshold, availability
and​ ​convenience​ ​takes​ ​precedence,​ ​especially​ ​for​ ​the​ ​fixed​ ​menu.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The information is not used in the decision-making process in the operational stages of the
restaurant but is appreciated as a supportive tool to justify and broadly validate what the
restaurant​ ​already​ ​does.

Res06
A​ ​cafe/restaurant​ ​which​ ​places​ ​emphasis​ ​on​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​its​ ​dishes.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is high,
with sustainability being one of the focus points of the restaurant. The menu of the restaurant
communicates certain dishes as having significantly lower carbon footprint. It also has a section
on the mune educating the consumers about carbon footprint of dishes and also the significance
of reducing it. The restaurant is one of the few restaurants that employed professional LCA tools
to calculate the carbon footprint of dishes and develop dishes accordingly. It is inferred from the
interview that the restaurant believes that action needs to curb climate change and that much
difference can be made by the food being served at restaurants. It was explicitly mentioned that
sustainability​ ​was​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​driving​ ​pillars​ ​of​ ​the​ ​business.
Cost/budget:
The restaurant wanted to cut down on the carbon footprint of the dishes that it serves so it
employed a professional LCA tool to develop dishes on their menu. The restaurant perceived the
demand to be meat-centric hence it did not fully take out the meat-based ingredients, in order to
not lose out on the majority of the business, but used the information from the LCA tool to bring

46
down the carbon footprint of the same dishes by increasing the ratio of plant-based ingredients in
the recipes and decreasing the ratio of animal product based ingredients. The monetary challenge
faced by the restaurant is mainly due to managing the demand of the meat-centric audience who
many times complain about the change in portions. On the other side, they did see an increase in
savings as the plant-based ingredients cost lower than the meat-based ingredients for the
restaurant per dish served. Local sourcing and seasonal sourcing gets expensive for the
restaurant,​ ​hence​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​see​ ​it​ ​as​ ​economically​ ​viable​ ​option​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so.
Effort/time:
The availability of locally sourced and seasonal ingredients is a big challenge for the restaurant,
and it does not opt for it as the convenience of hiring a reliable supplier with reasonable prices
takes precedence. The challenge for the restaurant in terms of the dishes that it develops using
the carbon footprint information is the experimentation of different things in the kitchen to
innovatively develop dishes which suit the tastes of the perceived demand of meat-centric
audience, using the now altered ratio of plant-based ingredients and animal-product based
ingredients. That development process in the kitchen as well as educating the audience to adapt
the​ ​new​ ​diet​ ​is​ ​where​ ​the​ ​effort​ ​and​ ​time​ ​gets​ ​increased,​ ​stated​ ​the​ ​representative.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:
The role of the carbon footprint information is highly relevant for this restaurant. The
information plays a directive/suggestive role in the decision-making process of the operational
stages in the business. It supports the decision of the restaurant to reduce its carbon footprint in
the​ ​dishes​ ​that​ ​it​ ​serves.

Res07
A​ ​burger​ ​restaurant​ ​fast​ ​food​ ​chain​ ​which​ ​places​ ​emphasis​ ​on​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​its​ ​dishes.
Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:
According to the initial study of the brand communication, vision/mission/values, menu, et
cetera to position the restaurant on the Brand Identity spectrum, environmental concern is high,
with sustainability being one of the focus points of the restaurant business. This restaurant chain
calculates the carbon footprint of each of its dishes and communicates it to its consumers. The

47
chain also offsets a 100% of the carbon footprint that it generates through its dishes by planting
trees in Africa. It is inferred from the interview that the restaurant chain places sustainability as
one of the main driving factors of the business. The knowledge that food choices make a big
impact on the environment is what made the chain adopt the carbon footprint information as
sustainability was part of the business since its inception in different forms, the representative
stated.
Cost/budget:
The restaurant chain does feel restricted by the perceived demand of its audience which leans a
bit more towards the meat-centric side than towards the plant-based side. Being a big chain of
restaurants, profits do drive much of its decisions. The demand is one of the main driving factors
for the chain as profits are certainly of high importance to the business and the sustainable
behaviour suggested by the carbon footprint information does not influence its decisions in the
operational stages of the restaurants fully. Hence it tried to explore different ways which might
not hurt their profits in a big way. Although the carbon offsetting programme through planting
trees as sustainable behaviour is not in the scope of this research, the monetary implications will
be discussed as the offsetting is an indirect result of the measurement of carbon footprint
information of the dishes the chain serves. The representative mentions that although a
significant cost to the chain, the carbon offsetting programme by planting trees in Africa is seen
by them as an investment as it works in their favour by boosting their image as being a
sustainable​ ​and​ ​responsible​ ​business.
Effort/time:
The chain does not source locally or seasonally keeping sustainability in mind as being a chain of
restaurants, the sources for the ingredients are standardised for all the franchises. Consistency of
all products throughout all chains and availability of ingredients takes precedence over
sustainable behaviour when it comes to sourcing. The challenges in effort and time are stated to
mainly be encountered in the research and development of all their dishes, as there is a constant
strive to develop products using ingredients with lower carbon footprint but also suit the taste of
their​ ​target​ ​audience.
Role​ ​of​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​information:

48
The role carbon footprint information is highly relevant for this restaurant chain business. The
chain uses the information in the directive/suggestive role, as a support tool to achieve the aim to
reduce​ ​the​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dishes​ ​they​ ​serve.

Conclusion​:
According to the results condensed out of the semi-structured interviews, the proposition of the
research - “The carbon footprint information alone in itself does not elicit pro-environmental or
sustainable behaviour in the operational stages of the restaurant business, but it plays an
empowering/supportive role to the restaurants, which already want to take sustainable decisions
in the operational stages and supplements their decisions to do so to a varying degree depending
on the various mediating contextual factors” - is seen to hold true within the boundaries and
limitations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​research​ ​(see​ ​Figure​ ​5).

Respondent Contextual​ ​Factors’​ ​Summary Role of Carbon

Restaurant Footprint​ ​Information

Res01 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:​ ​None Factual general

● Cost/budget: Profits have high priority. knowledge. Irrelevant for
Sustainability​ ​not​ ​considered. business.
● Effort/time: ​Convenience and quick service
times have high priority. Sustainability not
considered.

Res02 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:​ ​None Irrelevant​ ​for​ ​business.

● Cost/budget: Profits have high priority.
Sustainability​ ​not​ ​considered.
● Effort/time: ​Convenience and quick service
times have high priority. Sustainability not
considered.

Res03 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition​:​ ​None Irrelevant​ ​for​ ​business.

● Cost/budget: Profits have high priority.
Sustainability​ ​not​ ​considered.
● Effort/time: ​Convenience has high priority.
Sustainability​ ​not​ ​considered.

Res04 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition:​ ​Low Factual general

49
 ● Cost/budget: ​Quality and profits have high knowledge.
priority.​ ​Sustainability​ ​not​ ​considered. Irrelevant​ ​for​ b​ usiness.
● Effort/time: ​Sustainability considered as
marketing tool on special occasions but
convenience and availability always take
higher​ ​priority.

Res05 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition:​ ​High Supportive​ ​role.

● Cost/budget: ​Sustainability is considered Validation for actions but
strongly in decision-making, but after a not used in
point,​ ​costs​ ​take​ ​precedence. decision-making.
● Effort/time: ​Sustainability is considered
strongly in decision-making, but after a
point,​ ​availability​ ​takes​ ​precedence.

Res06 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition:​ ​High Empowerment​ ​role.

● Cost/budget: ​Sustainability is considered Directly used in the
strongly in decision-making, but does not decision-making in a
supercede​ ​profits​ ​in​ ​priority. suggestive / directive
● Effort/time: ​Sustainability is considered way.
strongly, but selectively, in decision-
making. It does not always supercede
convenience​ ​in​ ​priority.

Res07 ● Environmental​ ​concern/disposition:​ ​High Empowerment​ ​role.

● Cost/budget: ​Sustainability is considered Directly used in the
strongly in decision-making, but does not decision-making in a
supercede​ ​profits​ ​in​ ​priority. suggestive / directive
● Effort/time: ​Sustainability is considered way.
strongly, but selectively, in decision-
making. It does not always supercede
convenience​ ​in​ ​priority.
Figure​ ​5​:​ ​Summary​ ​of​ ​Results

Discussion
As can be seen in the results churned out of the analysis of the data from the semi-structured
interviews, the restaurants that did not have the environmental concern and disposition was not
favourable to adopting the sustainable food choices, did not find the carbon footprint information

50
relevant to their decision-making process in the operational stages of the business. The other two
contextual factors being tested invariably followed the pattern of going for highest profits and
highest convenience/availability, as any other business would and did not even consider
sustainability. Only in the cases of the restaurants which already had environmental concern and
were of the favourable disposition towards the adoption of sustainable food choices, did they
find the carbon footprint information even remotely relevant, to varying degrees according to the
other two contextual factors of cost/budget and effort/time. It is seen that at first when the value
based contextual factor of environmental concern/disposition is favourable, then the role played
by the carbon footprint information on eliciting sustainable behaviour in the decision-making
process of the operational stages of the restaurant business is mediated by the two constraint
based contextual factors of cost/budget and effort/time. In all the cases it can be seen that the
aspects of perceived demand of the audience and availability of ingredients play a significant
role. This is an interesting point to be noted as it reflects a major point in the problem in adoption
of sustainable food. Many of the big problems, just like adoption of sustainable food, are being
acted on by three main constituent bodies: the society, the government, and the businesses. Now
when it comes to adoption of sustainable food, let us talk about the society (consumers) and the
businesses (restaurants). On first glance, it might look as if the problem of sustainable food not
being adopted quick enough is a cyclic problem - ​i.e​., the society will consume and demand
more of what the businesses offer, and the businesses will offer only those things which are high
in demand. But in this case, the responsibility of the cyclic problem lies a lot more on the part of
society. If the consumers realize the urgency of the matter of climate change, and the strong link
that the carbon footprint of food has with climate change, and then subsequently act on that
realization by consuming sustainably, then the transition will happen a lot quicker as the
businesses will inevitably follow the demand. Freeman (2011) says that the public “[…] no
longer accepts major environmental damage as the price for economic opportunity.’ (p. 9, in Post
& Altman, 1994, p. 66) Companies that do not implement environmental or “green” initiatives
may feel pressure from the public to make changes. Seventh Generation, Patagonia, and Smith
and Hawkins are companies that have embraced environmental values and produced
environmentally friendly goods, experiencing increased profits as a result (Post & Altman,

51
1994). The public’s demand for environmentally friendly products is the main reason companies
produce them. By meeting the demand, companies achieve higher profit margins. “Green”
companies have gained a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage can also act as a
business principle that allows companies to adapt to environmental issues confronting a business
(Welford & Ytterhus, 1998). The advantage depends on the internal culture of the company and
the social influences that define the acceptability of the company’s economic and environmental
behavior (Oliver, 1997). The choices made about materials efficiency, employee commitment,
and the predictions made about future regulations all affect a company’s competitive advantage.
Good choices and accurate predictions increase the efficiency and long-term sustainability of the
business. A company can rise above others in the same industry by using strategies and
structures (Oliver, 1997) that increase economic profitability and create a sustainable competitive
advantage. This of course does not imply that the businesses have no responsibility, as they too
carry the weight of contributing to climate change by greenhouse gas emissions by the food that
they​ ​serve.
Obviously, as the research background of this research suggests, just information will not bring
in the change in action as the mental models of people is where the change has to come. CRED’s
(2009) research shows that ‘[…] in order for climate science information to be fully absorbed by
audiences, it must be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor, and analogy;
combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid through visual imagery and experiential
scenarios; balanced with scientific information; and delivered by trusted messengers in group
settings.’ (p. 9) All talk about the barriers and obstacles in bringing in a change has a chance of
painting quite a grim picture of the future. But CRED (2009) elaborates the ways towards hope
as well, by adding: ‘The good news is that mental models are not static - people will update them
by correcting misinformation, inserting new building blocks, and/or making new connections
with existing knowledge. But for a presentation of new climate change information to succeed,
communicators should first do their best to discover what climate change misconceptions the
audience​ ​may​ ​have​ ​in​ ​its​ ​mental​ ​models.’​ ​(p.​ ​2)
Many different approaches to bring the change in mental models have been discussed. One of the
is the appropriate framing of information, keeping in mind the subtleties of framing. CRED

52
2009) lists the Subtleties of framing to be kept in mind as: Promotion vs. Prevention Frame;
Bring the Message Close to Home: A Local Frame; Make the Message Matter Now: The Now
vs. Future Frame; Combining the Now vs. Future Frame With a Gain vs. Loss Frame; Broaden
the Message: The Interconnected Frame. Moser and Dilling (2007) state: ‘For communication to
be effective i.e. to facilitate a desired social change, it must accomplish two things: sufficiently
elevate and maintain the motivation to change a practice or policy & at the same time contribute
to lowering the barriers to doing so.’ (p. 494), adding later in the paper that: ‘[…] Numerous
examples illustrate the critical importance of leaders to initiate or sustain change (​e.g​., James ​et
al​., Watrous & Fraley, duVair ​et al​., Tennis, Young, & Meyer). These examples confirm a
deeply held belief in the necessity of individuals taking charge of a situation. While history has
produced great leaders doing just that, this mental model can also induce complacency: until a
leader appears, there is nothing to do. Simultaneously, we can blame heads of industry or
government for stalling action. Hoping that someone will eventually take care of this problem in
the future ignores the obvious—the many actors already preparing the ground for social change.’
(p.​ ​497)
Sometimes, people think of sustainable actions as interchangeable, and select just some
sustainable actions that they perform while the other times act gravely unsustainable ways.
People often take no further action, presumably because the first one succeeded in reducing their
feeling of worry or vulnerability. This phenomenon is called the single action bias. (Weber,
1997)
Along with efficient communication, the appropriate distribution of responsibility among the
different constituents of society is also discussed as a way to bring in change. Great emphasis
must be placed on the negotiation of partnerships that are more sensitive to local diversity and
which involve a more equitable distribution of responsibility between different environmental
stakeholders (Blake, 2001). Making the sustainable food choices as the default choices in places
where it can be done also can help as default effects have shown positive results in many cases
(Pichert ​et al​., 2008). CRED (2009) states that: ‘[…] it is important to consider default effects
when people make decisions over time. For example, when people have a choice between Option
A, with benefits and costs in the present, and Option B, whose benefits and/ or costs might not be

53
realized until some point in the future, the default option can affect their preferences. Particularly
when making decisions about consumption (to purchase something, to receive a reward, to make
a sacrifice), people tend to be more patient when the default option is to wait versus when the
default​ ​option​ ​is​ ​to​ ​receive​ ​something​ ​now.’​ ​(p.​ ​37)
Many such approaches are being discussed in order for the world to find ways to adopt
sustainable practices including the mainstream adoption of sustainable food. The carbon
footprint information is seen to be immensely useful in the empowering/supportive role for
businesses, as can be seen in this particular research. But other than businesses, the information
can​ ​probably​ ​similarly​ ​play​ ​the​ ​same​ ​roles​ ​for​ ​government​ ​and​ ​society​ ​as​ ​well.
This following quote by Jeffrey Sachs (Director of The Earth Institute, Columbia University)
seems like an appropriate one for the times and societal condition that we live in: ‘The ultimate
solutions to climate change are workable, cost-effective technologies which permit society to
improve living standards while limiting and adapting to changes in the climate. Yet scientific,
engineering, and organizational solutions are not enough. Societies must be motivated and
empowered​ ​to​ ​adopt​ ​the​ ​needed​ ​changes.’​ ​(Source:​ ​CRED​ ​website,​ ​2009)

Limitations

Due to various constraints, this particular research is restricted by some limitations. The
limitations​ ​will​ ​be​ ​briefly​ ​discussed​ ​in​ ​this​ ​chapter.

Limited​ ​Respondent​ ​Restaurants

Despite continued efforts to obtain more respondent restaurants to participate in the multiple case
study, there were just seven respondent restaurants which did. As the participation requests were
sent to restaurants throughout the spread out different parts of the Brand Identity spectrum, only
some of them responded and agreed, and there was no control over the number of restaurants
responding from different parts of the spectrum. If there were more respondent restaurants from

54
the different parts of the spectrum then there might have been a better representation of different
parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spectrum​ ​with​ ​better​ ​statistical​ ​validity.

Respondent​ ​Restaurants​ ​from​ ​different​ ​locations

Although initially a singular region was selected from where the respondent restaurants would
have been invited, due to various reasons (lack of response being a main one), the net was spread
wider in order to increase the response rate. As a consequence of that, the respondent restaurants
are from various parts of the world. In a comparative study like this one, that might affect the
results as then the comparison is not happening with the same factors affecting the factors being
studied.

Self​ ​inference​ ​of​ ​Brand​ ​Identity​ ​spectrum

The Brand Identity spectrum developed for this research which was used to choose the
respondent restaurants and also to partly discern the contextual factor of Environmental
concern/disposition. As that is my own personal perception of the brand image that the different
respondent restaurants project, it might be afflicted with bias which might affect the results of the
research.

Bias​ ​in​ ​the​ ​representatives’​ ​answers

Although there was given explicitly the cover of anonymity,in order to maximise the honesty of
answers given by representatives of respondent restaurants in the semi-structured interviews,
there is always a chance that the representatives, being associated with the respondent
restaurants, give biased answers which show the respective restaurants in good light. This bias
might​ ​affect​ ​the​ ​result​ ​of​ ​the​ ​research.

55
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. ​Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes​,​ ​50​(2),​ ​179–211.

Baldwin, Ch, Wilberforce, N., & Kapur, A. (2011). Restaurant and food service Life-cycle
Assessment and development of a sustainable standard. ​International ​Journal of Life-cycle
Assessment,​ ​16​(1),​ ​40-49.

Barr, S. (2004). Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action.
Geoforum​,​ ​35​(2​),​ ​231-249.

Baxter, P. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for
Novice​ ​Researchers.​ ​TQR​,​ ​13​(4),​ ​134-152.

Blake, D.E. (1999). Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience. ​The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability,​ ​4​(3),​ ​257-278.

Blake, D.E. (2001). Contextual Effects on Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. ​Environment
and​ ​Behavior,​ ​33(5),​ ​708-725.

Boykoff, M.T. (2011). ​Who Speaks For Climate? Making Sense Of Media Reporting On Climate
Change.​ ​Cambridge:​ ​Cambridge​ ​University​ ​Press.

Bradley, T.C. (2011). Likelihood of Eco-Friendly Confusion: Greenwashing and the FTC “Green
Guides”.​ ​Landslide​,​ ​4​(1),​ ​1-5.

56
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of
science, in M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.). ​Handbook of Public Communication of Science and
Technology​ ​(pp.​ ​57–76).​ ​London:​ ​Routledge.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (1998). Climate change and dietary choices — how can emissions of
greenhouse​ ​gases​ ​from​ ​food​ ​consumption​ ​be​ ​reduced?​​ ​Food​ ​Policy​,​ ​23​(3/4),​ ​277–293.

CRED (2009). ​The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. ​New York, NY: Columbia
University​ ​/​ ​Center​ ​for​ ​Research​ ​for​ ​Environmental​ ​Decisions.

Crowley, Th. J. (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years​. Science,
289​(5477),​ ​270-277.

Darier, E., & Schüle, R. (1999). Think globally, act locally’? Climate change and public
participation in Manchester and Frankfurt. ​Local Environment​, ​International Journal of Justice
and​ ​Sustainability​,​ ​4​(3),​ ​317–330.

Dasgupta, P., Ledvin, S., & Lubchenco, J. (2000). Economic pathways to ecological
sustainability.​ ​BioScience,​ ​50​(4),​ ​339-345.

de Boer, J., de Witt, A., & Aiking, H. (2016). ​Help the climate, change your diet: A
cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society​.
Appetite​,​ ​98​(1),​ ​19-27.

de Leeuw, L., & Bubna-Litic, K. (1999) Implementing the Green Advantage in Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises. ​Paper at the Ninth International Conference of Greening of Industry
Network Sustainability at the Millenium: Globalization, Competitiveness and the Public Trust,
Bangkok.

Deweerdt,​ ​S.​ ​(2009).​ ​Is​ ​Local​ ​food​ ​better?,​ ​World​ ​Watch​ ​Magazine​,​ ​22​(3),​ ​6-10.

57
Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a 'deficit model' of science communication. Retrieved from
http://medsci.free.fr/docsderef/Dickson2005_Deficit%20model%20of%20science%20communic
ation.pdf

Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002a). Environmental attitudes and values. In R.

Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.) ​The Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment. ​(Volume 1, pp.
364-369).​ ​London:​ ​Sage.

Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002b). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement
issues. In R.E. Dunlap, & W. Michelson (Eds.). ​Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp.
482-524).​ ​Westport,​ ​CT:​ ​Greenwood.

Dunlap, R. E., & van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. ​Journal of
Environmental​ ​Education​,​ ​9​,​ ​10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the
new​ ​ecological​ ​paradigm:​ ​A​ ​revised​ ​NEP​ ​scale.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Social​ ​Issues​,​ ​56​(3),​ ​425-442.

Dunlap, R. E. (1998). Lay perceptions of global risk: public views of global warming in
cross-national​ ​context.​ ​International​ ​Sociology,​ ​13​(4),​​ ​473-498.

Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public
understanding​ ​of​ ​science​ ​in​ ​Britain.​ ​Public​ ​Understanding​ ​of​ ​Science​,​ ​4​(1),​ ​57-74.

EWG Report (2011). ​Meat Eaters Guide to Climate Change + Health. Washington, DC:
Environmental​ ​Working​ ​Group.​ ​Retrieved​ ​from
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_healt
h_and_climate_2011.pdf

58
FAO (2006). ​Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: ​Food And
Agriculture​ ​Organization​ ​Of​ ​The​ ​United​ ​Nations.

Fishbein M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). ​Beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior: An introduction to
theory​ ​and​ ​research.​ ​Reading,​ ​MA:​ ​Addison-Wesley.

FOEN (2009). ​The Ecological Scarcity Method – Eco-Factors 2006: A method for impact
assessment​ ​in​ ​LCA.​ ​Zürich:​​ ​Federal​ ​Office​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Environment.

Fransson, N. & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions,

Measurement Methods, And Research Findings. ​Journal of Environmental Psychology​, ​19​(4),
369-382.

Freeman, E.M. (2011). ​Restaurant Industry Sustainability: Barriers and Solutions to Sustainable
Practice​ ​Indicators.​ ​Thesis.​ ​Phoenix,​ ​AZ:​ ​Arizona​ ​State​ ​University.

Gibson E. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice: sensory, physiological and

psychological​ ​pathways.​ ​Physiology​ ​&​ ​Behavior​,​ ​89​(1),​ ​53-61.

Grunert, S., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods.
Journal​ ​of​ ​Economic​ ​Psychology,​ ​16​(1),​ ​39-62.

Hecht, A.D. (2014). Past, Present and Future: Urgency of Dealing with Climate Change.
Atmospheric​ ​and​ ​Climate​ ​Sciences​,​ ​4,​ ​779-795.

Hirayu, N., Takase, K., Kanda, M., & Washizu, A. (2013). Carbon Footprint of Products (CFP)
as a communication tool with consumers: based on a Case Study of Skylark Co, Ltd. ​Journal of
Life​ ​Cycle​ ​Assessment,​ ​Japan,​ ​9(3),​ ​221-233.

59
Hozik, M. (2016). Making the Green by Going Green: Increased Demand for Green Products
and the FTC’s Role in a Greener Future. ​Georgetown Environmental Law Review​. Retrieved
from GELR website.
https://gelr.org/2016/02/01/making-the-green-by-going-green-increased-demand-for-green-produ
cts-and-the-ftcs-role-in-a-greener-future-georgetown-environmental-law-review/

Hu, H-H., Parsa, H.G., & Self, J. (2010). The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. ​Cornell
Hospital​ ​Quarterly​,​ ​51​(3),​ ​344-362.

Jaskolski, S.V. (1999). ​Environmental science and engineering for the 21st century: The role of
the​ ​National​ ​Science​ ​Foundation.​ ​Washington​ ​DC:​ ​National​ ​Science​ ​Board.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. ​The
American​ ​Economic​ ​Review​,​ ​93​(5),​ ​1449-1475.

Kahneman,​ ​D.​ ​(2011).​ ​Thinking,​ ​Fast​ ​and​ ​Slow.​ ​New​ ​York,​ ​NY:​ ​Farrar,​ ​Straus​ ​and​ ​Giroux.

Kaiser, E., Godschalk, D., & Chapin, S.F. (1995). ​Urban land use planning. ​Chicago, IL:
University​ ​of​ ​Illinois​ ​Press

Kates, R.W., Parris, Th.M, & Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). What Is Sustainable Development?
Goals, Indicators, Values, And Practice. ​Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development​,​ ​47​(3),​ ​8–21.

Kellstedt, P.M. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment,and attitudes towards
global​ ​warming​ ​&​ ​climate​ ​change​ ​in​ ​US.​ ​Risk​ ​Analysis,​ ​28(1),​ ​113–126.

60
Kempton, W., Boster, J.S., & Hartley, J. (1995). ​Environmental Values in American Culture.
Cambridge,​ ​MA:​ ​MIT​ ​Press.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2010). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? ​Environmental Education Research​, ​8​(3),
239-260.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to
pay​ ​more​ ​for​ ​environmentally​ ​friendly​ ​products.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Consumer​ ​Marketing,​ ​18​(6),​ ​503-20.

Leach, A., & Emery, K.A. (2016). Environmental impact food labels combining carbon,
nitrogen,​ ​and​ ​water​ ​footprints.​ ​Food​ ​Policy,​ ​61​,​ ​213-223.

Macnaghten,​ ​P.,​ ​&​ ​Urry,​ ​J.​ ​(1998).​ ​Contested​ ​Natures​.​ ​ ​London:​ ​Sage.

Mayring, Ph. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. ​Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative​ ​Social​ ​Research​,​ ​1​(2),​ ​Art.​ ​20.

Mervis, J. (2015, 25 Feb.). Politics, science, and public attitudes: What we’re learning, and why
it matters. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learn
ing-and-why-it-matters

Milfont, T.L. (2012). The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about
global warming and climate change: A one year longitudinal study. ​Risk Analysis: An
International​ ​Journal,​ ​32(6),​ ​1003–1020.

Miller,​ ​J.D.​ ​(1983).​ ​Scientific​ ​literacy:​ ​a​ ​conceptual​ ​and​ ​empirical​ ​review.​​ ​Daedalus​,​ ​112(2),​ ​29-
48.

61
Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of scientific literacy. ​Public Understanding of Science​,
7​(3),​ ​203-223.

Miller, S. (2001). ​Public understanding of science at the crossroads​. ​Public Understanding of

Science​,​ ​10(1),​ ​115-120.

Moftakhari, H. R., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B. F., Feldman, D. L., Sweet, W., Matthew, R.
A., ​et al. (2015). Increased nuisance flooding along the coasts of the United States due to sea
level​ ​rise:​ ​Past​ ​and​ ​future.​ ​Geophysical​ ​Research​ ​Letters​,​ ​42​(22),​ ​9846–9852.

Moser, S.C., & Dilling, L. (2007). ​Toward the social tipping point: creating a climate for
change​.​ ​Cambridge:​ ​Cambridge​ ​University​ ​Press.

Myers,​ ​M.​ ​D.​ ​(2009).​ ​Qualitative​ ​Research​ ​in​ ​Business​ ​&​ ​Management​.​ ​London:​ ​Sage.

NCSE (2017). ​What Can We Do About Climate Change? ​Oakland, CA: ​National Center for
Science and Education. Retrieved from:
https://ncse.com/library-resource/what-can-we-do-climate-change

Neuman, M. (1999). ​The sustainability question: Beyond the compact city fallacy: Planning
sustainable​ ​urban​ ​development.​ ​Berkeley,​ ​CA:​ ​The​ ​Michael​ ​Neuman​ ​Consultancy.

Nguyen,​ ​S.​ ​(2017).​ ​The​ ​Rise​ ​of​ ​Vegan​ ​Culture.​​ ​Harvard​ ​Magazine​,​ ​July-August​ ​2017.

Nielsen (2015). Green Generation: Millennials Say Sustainability Is A Shopping Priority.

Retrieved from:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/green-generation-millennials-say-sustainabilit
y-is-a-shopping-priority.html

62
Nordlund, A., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior.
Environment​ ​and​ ​Behavior​,​ ​34​(6),​ ​740-756.

NRA​ ​(2010).​ ​Industry​ ​at​ ​a​ ​glance.​ ​Retrieved​ ​from​ ​www.restaurant.org/research/ind_glance.cfm​.

NRA (2010). Restaurant industry operations report. Retrieved from:

www.restaurant.org/research/operations/report.cfm.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). ​Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York, NY:
NIrwin​ ​/​ ​Mcgraw​ ​Hill.

Olson, J.M., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Attitudes and Attitude Change. ​Annual Review of
Psychology​,​ ​44​(1),​ ​117-154.

Owens, S. (2000). ‘Engaging the public’: information & deliberation on environmental policy.
Environment​ ​and​ ​Planning​ ​A,​ ​32​(7),​ ​1141-1148.

Oxfam (2017). ​5 natural disasters that beg for climate action. ​Retrieved from
https://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/grow/5-natural-disasters-beg-climate-action.

Patton,​ ​M.​ ​(1990).​ ​Qualitative​ ​evaluation​ ​and​ ​research​ ​methods​.​ ​(pp.​ ​169-186).​ ​London:​ ​Sage.

Peters, B.G. (2000). Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level

governance.​ ​Policy​ ​&​ ​Politics,​ ​29​(2),​ ​131-135.

Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K.V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and
pro-environmental​ ​behaviour​.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Environmental​ ​Psychology,​ ​28(1),​ ​337-359.

63
Popkin,​ ​S.​ ​L.​ ​(1991).​ ​The​ ​reasoning​ ​voter.​ ​Chicago,​ ​IL:​ ​Univiversity​ ​of​ ​Chicago​ ​Press.

Popkin, S.L., & Dimock, M.A. (1999). ​Citizen competence and democratic institutions​.
University​ ​Park,​ ​PA:​ ​Pennsylvania​ ​State​ ​University​ ​Press.

Post, J.E., & Altman, B.W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process: Barriers and
opportunities.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Organizational​ ​Change​ ​Management​,​ ​7​(4),​ ​64-81.

Ramli, N. (2009). Awareness of Eco-label in Malaysia’s Green Marketing Initiative.

International​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Business​ ​and​ ​Management.​ ​4​(8),​ ​132-140.

Raper, S. C. B., & Braithwaite, R. J. (2006). ​Low sea level rise projections from mountain
glaciers​ ​and​ ​icecaps​ ​under​ ​global​ ​warming​.​ ​Nature,​ ​439(7074),​ ​311–313.

Reubold, T. (2015, Nov. 13). ​These Maps Show Changes In Global Meat Consumption By 2024.
Here’s Why That Matters. ​Retrieved from
https://ensia.com/articles/these-maps-show-changes-in-global-meat-consumption-by-2024-heres-
why-that-matters/

Reynoso, C.F. (2010). The Use Of Case Studies In Preparing Postgraduate Dissertations On
Small​ ​And​ ​Medium​ ​Sized​ ​Firms.​ ​Review​ ​Of​ ​Business​ ​&​ ​Finance​ ​Case​ ​Studies​,​ ​1(1),​ ​81-94.

Röös, E. (2013). ​Analysing the Carbon Footprint of Food​. Thesis. Uppsala: Swedish University
of​ ​Agricultural​ ​Sciences.

Russell, C., Gregory, D., Ploeg, J., DiCenso, A., & Guyatt, G. (2005). Qualitative research. In A.
DiCenso, G. Guyatt, & D. Ciliska (Eds.), ​Evidence-based nursing: A guide to clinical practice
(pp.​ ​120-135).​ ​St.​ ​Louis,​ ​MO:​ ​Elsevier​ ​Mosby.

64
Russell, S. (2014, May 29). Everything You Need to Know About Agricultural Emissions.
Retrieved from
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/everything-you-need-know-about-agricultural-emissions

Scheufele, D. (2006). Messages And Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes About
Emerging Technologies. In J. Turtley (Ed.). ​Engaging Science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and
action​.​ ​(pp.​ ​20-25).​ ​London:​ ​Wellcome​ ​Trust.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structures of values: Theoretical advances
and​ ​empirical​ ​tests​ ​in​ ​20​ ​countries.​​ ​Advances​ ​in​ ​Experimental​ ​Psychology​,​ ​25​(4),​ ​1-62.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values?​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Social​ ​Issues​,​ ​50​(4),​ ​19-45.

Sörquist, P., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Holmgren, M., Walinder, M., Nösti, A., Seager, P.B., &
Marsh, J.E. (2015). The green halo: Mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. ​Food and
Quality​ ​Preference,​ ​43​(1),​ ​1-9.

Stake,​ ​R.​ ​E.​ ​(1995).​ ​The​ ​art​ ​of​ ​case​ ​study​ ​research.​ ​Thousand​ ​Oaks,​ ​CA:​ ​Sage.

Standish, S. (2005). Business And Climate Change: Examining Drivers For Action. Sustainable
Development​ ​Law​ ​&​ ​Policy,​ ​5​(2),​ ​9-13.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P.
(2009).​ ​Climate​ ​benefits​ ​of​ ​changing​ ​die,​.​ ​Climatic​ ​Change,​ ​95​(1–2),​ ​83–102.

Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory
of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. ​Human Ecology Review, ​6​(2),
81-97.

65
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). S​cience in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public
Attitudes.​ ​Public​ ​Understanding​ ​of​ ​Science,​ ​13​(1),​ ​55-74.

Tellis,​ ​W.​ ​M.​ ​(1997).​ ​Application​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Case​ ​Study​ ​Methodology.​ ​TQR​,​ ​3​(3),​ ​1-19.

Titley, D. (2017). ​Why limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius is so important. ​Retrieved
from​ ​https://phys.org/news/2017-08-limiting-global-degrees-celsius-important.html

Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to
adopt​ ​ecological​ ​food​ ​consumption​ ​behaviours​.​ ​Appetite,​ ​57​(3),​​ ​674-682.

Weber, E.U. (1997). Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic
and technological adaptation. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. Wade-Benzoni
(Eds.), ​Psychological and Ethical Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in
Management​.​ ​(pp.​ ​314-341).​ ​San​ ​Francisco,​ ​CA:​ ​Jossey-Bass.

Welford, R., & Ytterhus, B. (1998). Conditions for the transformation of eco-tourism into
sustainable​ ​tourism.​ ​Environment​ ​and​ ​Policy​ ​Governance,​ ​8​(6),​ ​193-201.

Wesley Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. C. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be

congruent​ ​with​ ​American​ ​Values.​​ ​Human​ ​Ecology​ ​Review​,​ ​10​(2),​ ​126-136.

Wesley Schultz, P. (2002). ​Knowledge, Information, and Household Recycling: Examining the
Knowledge-Deficit Model of Behavior Change​. In Th. Dietz (Ed.). New Toolls for
Environmental Education, Information, and Voluntary Meassures (pp. 67-82). Washington, DC:
National​ ​Academic​ ​Press.

66
Wesley Schultz, P., & Tyra, A. (2000). A Field Study of Normative Beliefs and Environmental
Behaviour.​ ​Poster​ ​presented​ ​at​ ​Western​ ​Psychological​ ​Association,​ ​Portland,​ ​April​ ​13-16.

Wesley Schultz, P., Gouveia, V.V., & Cameron, L.D. (2005). Values and their Relationship to
Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior​. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology​,
36​(4),​ ​457-475.

Worcester R, (1997). Public opinion and the environment. In M. Jacobs (Ed.). ​Greening the
Millennium:​ ​The​ ​New​ ​Politics​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Environment​.​ ​(pp.​ ​160-173).​ ​Oxford:​ ​Blackwell.

Worldwatch Institute (2011). ​Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise.
Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwatch.org/global-meat-production-and-consumption-continue-rise-1.

Wu, Z., Pagell, M., (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain
management.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Operations​ ​Management.​ ​29​(6),​ ​577-590.

Yazan (2015). Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake.
The​ ​Qualitative​ ​Report​ ​2015,​ ​20​(2),​ ​134-152.

Yin, R.K. (1984). Ca​se study research: Design and methods. ​(1​st Edition). Beverley Hills, CA:
Sage.

Yin,​ ​R.K.​ ​(1989).​ ​Case​ ​study​ ​research:​ ​Design​ ​and​ ​methods​.​ ​Newbury​ ​Park,​ ​CA:​ ​Sage.

Yin,​ ​R.K.​ ​(1993).​ ​Applications​ ​of​ ​case​ ​study​ ​research.​ ​Newbury​ ​Park,​ ​CA:​ ​Sage.

Yin, R.K. (1994). ​Case study research: Design and Methods (2​nd Edition). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

67
Yin, R.K. (2003). ​Case study research: Design and Methods (3​rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Zainal,​ ​Z.​ ​(2007).​ ​Case​ ​study​ ​as​ ​a​ ​research​ ​method.​ ​Jurnal​ ​Kemanusiaan,​ ​9​.

Appendix

Appendix​ ​I

68
Appendix​ ​II

General​ ​Framework​ ​of​ ​Interview​ ​Questions​ ​V.1.

Procurement​ ​of​ ​ingredients:

● What​ ​is​ ​your​ ​sourcing​ ​process?
● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​top​ ​criteria​ ​on​ ​which​ ​the​ ​suppliers​ ​are​ ​decided​ ​on?
● What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​frequency​ ​of​ ​buying​ ​ingredients?
● On what basis is the list of ingredients that need to be bought decided upon? Inventory
needs​ ​as​ ​per​ ​demand​ ​or​ ​fixed​ ​set​ ​cycle?
● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​top​ ​priorities​ ​for​ ​you​ ​when​ ​buying​ ​ingredients?
● How much of an influence do these following things have when buying ingredients:
budget/ menu/ seasonality/ quality/ price/ effort of procurement. Any other factor
which​ ​might​ ​play​ ​a​ ​big​ ​role?

69
 ● In the above mentioned criterion, what are the biggest trade-offs and often a difficult
decision​ ​that​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​choosing​ ​one​ ​over​ ​the​ ​other?

Usage​ ​of​ ​ingredients:

● Any defined general guidelines on using the available ingredients? should they
look/feel/smell​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​way?​ ​Any​ ​set​ ​shelf​ ​life​ ​for​ ​different​ ​ingredients?
● How much does the inventory management weigh in on the usage of ingredients in the
dishes being prepared? What is the influence of the ingredients already present, in the
usage​ ​of​ ​them​ ​in​ ​the​ ​dishes?
● A general idea of the pantry optimization process, tracking/logging techniques used if
any​ ​for​ ​the​ ​ingredients?
● What​ ​dictates​ ​the​ ​usage​ ​of​ ​ingredients​ ​most?​ ​Demand​ ​or​ ​availability?
● What are the biggest challenges faced in the kitchen in terms of choosing what to use
and​ ​what​ ​not​ ​to​ ​use?
● Are different ways to construct a dishes explored? If yes, then in what conditions and
on​ ​what​ ​basis?​ ​Is​ ​that​ ​a​ ​trade-off​ ​between​ ​flexibility​ ​and​ ​consistency?

Sales​ ​and​ ​communication:

● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​drivers​ ​for​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​development​ ​process?
● Does​ ​the​ ​popular​ ​demand​ ​drive​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​or​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​try​ ​and​ ​drive​ ​the​ ​demand?
● Are any particular dishes preferred to be recommended to the customers over the
others? If yes, then why (maybe to give the customers the best experience that they
might​ ​have​ ​not​ ​chosen​ ​themselves)?
● What are the ways used to influence a customer's choice? Pricing/menus design
(photos,​ ​description​ ​etc)/​ ​server​ ​recommendations/​ ​advertising​ ​flagship​ ​dishes​ ​etc?

● How important would you say sustainability and environmental impact of food is for this
restaurant?

Show​ ​the​ ​following​ ​images:

70
● Are you familiar with what carbon footprint of food is? Are you aware of the impact that
the​ ​carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​food​ ​has​ ​on​ ​the​ ​environment?

71
 ● Does the information in the images seem relevant to the decision making process for their
business?​ ​Why?
● Is the implication of this information going to make any difference to the decisions make
in​ ​the​ ​operational​ ​stages​ ​of​ ​the​ ​restaurant?
● What are/will be the biggest challenges in making decisions while incorporating the
implications​ ​of​ ​this​ ​information?

General Framework of Interview Questions V.2. (for restaurants that already use carbon footprint
information)

Procurement​ ​of​ ​ingredients:

● What​ ​is​ ​your​ ​sourcing​ ​process?
● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​top​ ​criteria​ ​on​ ​which​ ​the​ ​suppliers​ ​are​ ​decided?
● What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​frequency​ ​of​ ​buying​ ​ingredients?
● On what basis is the list of ingredients that need to be bought decided upon? What is
the​ ​main​ ​driver​ ​to​ ​get​ ​ingredients:​ ​demand​ ​or​ ​pre-defined​ ​cycle?
● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​top​ ​priorities​ ​for​ ​you​ ​when​ ​buying​ ​ingredients?
● How much of an influence do these following things have when buying ingredients:
budget/ menu/ seasonality/ quality/ price/ effort of procurement. Any other factor
which​ ​might​ ​play​ ​a​ ​big​ ​role?
● In the above mentioned criterion, what are the biggest trade-offs and often a difficult
decision​ ​that​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​choosing​ ​one​ ​over​ ​the​ ​other?
● What effect does the carbon footprint information have on the decision making in the
procurement​ ​stages?​ ​What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​challenges?

Usage​ ​of​ ​ingredients:

● Any defined general guidelines on using the available ingredients? should they
look/feel/smell​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​way?
● What is the percentage of the inventory that gets thrown because of not being used
within its shelf life? What is the leading reason (inaccurate forecasting, inventory
management​ ​errors​ ​etc)​ ​?
● What dictates the usage of ingredients most: Demand or availability? Any other reason
that​ ​influences​ ​the​ ​usage​ ​of​ ​particular​ ​ingredients​ ​over​ ​others?
● What are the biggest challenges faced in the kitchen in terms of choosing what to use
and​ ​what​ ​not​ ​to​ ​use?
● Are different ways to construct a dishes explored? If yes, then in what conditions and
on​ ​what​ ​basis?​ ​Is​ ​that​ ​a​ ​trade-off​ ​between​ ​flexibility​ ​and​ ​consistency?

72
 ● What effect does the carbon footprint information have on the decision making in the
usage​ ​stages?​ ​What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​challenges?

Sales​ ​and​ ​communication:

● What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​drivers​ ​for​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​development​ ​process?
● Does​ ​the​ ​popular​ ​demand​ ​drive​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​or​ ​does​ ​the​ ​menu​ ​drive​ ​the​ ​demand?
● Are any particular dishes preferred to be recommended to the customers over the
others?​ ​If​ ​yes,​ ​then​ ​why?
● What are the ways used to influence a customer's choice? Pricing/menus design
(photos,​ ​description​ ​etc)/​ ​server​ ​recommendations/​ ​advertising​ ​flagship​ ​dishes​ ​etc?
● What effect does the carbon footprint information have on the decision making in the
sales stages? Does the CO2 information make any difference to the consumer behaviour?
What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​challenges?

● How important would you say sustainability and environmental impact of food is for this
restaurant?

General​ ​Framework​ ​of​ ​Interview​ ​Questions​ ​V.2.​ ​(German)

Beschaffung​ ​von​ ​Zutaten:
● Was​ ​ist​ ​Ihr​ ​Beschaffungsprozess?
● Welches​ ​sind​ ​die​ ​Hauptkriterien,​ ​nach​ ​denen​ ​die​ ​Lieferanten​ ​sich​ ​entscheiden?
● Wie​ ​oft​ ​werden​ ​Zutaten​ ​gekauft?
● Auf welcher Basis wird die Liste der zu kaufenden Zutaten entschieden? Was ist der
Hauptantrieb​ ​für​ ​Inhaltsstoffe:​ ​Nachfrage​ ​oder​ ​vordefinierter​ ​Zyklus?
● Was​ ​sind​ ​die​ ​wichtigsten​ ​Prioritäten​ ​für​ ​Sie​ ​beim​ ​Kauf​ ​von​ ​Zutaten?
● Wie viel Einfluss haben die folgenden Dinge beim Kauf von Zutaten: Budget / Menü /
Saisonalität / Qualität / Preis / Aufwand der Beschaffung. Irgendein anderer Faktor, der
eine​ ​große​ ​Rolle​ ​spielen​ ​könnte?
● Was sind im oben genannten Kriterium die größten Kompromisse und oft eine schwierige
Entscheidung, die getroffen werden muss, wenn es darum geht, eins über das andere zu
wählen?
● Gibt es Unterschiede in der Art und Weise, wie Entscheidungen über die Beschaffung
von Inhaltsstoffen getroffen werden zwischen "vor der Aufnahme der
CO2-Fußabdruck-Informationen" und "nach der Aufnahme"? Wenn ja, was sind sie?
Wenn​ ​nein,​ ​dann​ ​deiner​ ​Meinung​ ​nach​ ​warum​ ​nicht?

Verwendung​ ​von​ ​Zutaten:

73
 ● Irgendwelche definierten allgemeinen Richtlinien für die Verwendung der verfügbaren
Zutaten?​ ​sollten​ ​sie​ ​auf​ ​eine​ ​bestimmte​ ​Weise​ ​aussehen​ ​/​ ​fühlen​ ​/​ ​riechen?
● Wie hoch ist der Prozentsatz des Inventars, der aufgrund der Nichtverwendung innerhalb
der Haltbarkeitsdauer geworfen wird? Was ist der Hauptgrund (ungenaue Prognosen,
Bestandsverwaltungsfehler​ ​usw.)?
● Was diktiert die Verwendung von Zutaten am meisten: Nachfrage oder Verfügbarkeit?
Irgendein anderer Grund, der die Verwendung bestimmter Bestandteile über andere
beeinflußt?
● Was sind die größten Herausforderungen in der Küche in Bezug auf die Wahl, was zu
verwenden​ ​und​ ​was​ ​nicht​ ​zu​ ​verwenden?
● Gibt es verschiedene Möglichkeiten, ein erforschtes Geschirr zu konstruieren? Wenn ja,
unter welchen Bedingungen und auf welcher Grundlage? Ist das ein Kompromiss
zwischen​ ​Flexibilität​ ​und​ ​Konsistenz?
● Gibt es Unterschiede in der Art und Weise, wie Entscheidungen über die Verwendung
von Zutaten in der Küche getroffen werden, um Gerichte zwischen "vor der Aufnahme
der CO2-Fußabdruck-Informationen" und "nach der Aufnahme" zu erstellen? Wenn ja,
was​ ​sind​ ​sie?​ ​Wenn​ ​nein,​ ​dann​ ​deiner​ ​Meinung​ ​nach​ ​warum​ ​nicht?

Vertrieb​ ​und​ ​Kommunikation:

● Was​ ​sind​ ​die​ ​größten​ ​Treiber​ ​für​ ​den​ ​Menüentwicklungsprozess?
● Bewegt​ ​die​ ​populäre​ ​Nachfrage​ ​das​ ​Menü​ ​oder​ ​steuert​ ​das​ ​Menü​ ​die​ ​Nachfrage?
● Werden bestimmte Gerichte bevorzugt gegenüber den Kunden empfohlen? Wenn ja,
warum?
● Wie beeinflusst man die Wahl eines Kunden? Preisgestaltung / Menüdesign (Fotos,
Beschreibung​ ​etc.)​ ​/​ ​Serverempfehlungen​ ​/​ ​Werbeträgerschalen​ ​etc?
● Gibt es Unterschiede in der Art und Weise, wie Kommunikation / Verkauf zwischen "vor
der Aufnahme der CO2-Fußabdrucksinformationen" und "nachdem sie integriert wurden"
durchgeführt wird? Wenn ja, was sind sie? Wenn nein, dann deiner Meinung nach warum
nicht?

● Wie wichtig sind Nachhaltigkeit und Umweltverträglichkeit von Lebensmitteln für dieses
Restaurant?

Appendix​ ​III

74
 Respondent​ ​Restaurant Respondent​ ​Code

A fully commercial mexican restaurant owned Res01

by​ ​a​ ​big​ ​hospitality​ ​company

A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​pizza​ ​restaurant​ ​chain. Res02

A​ ​fully​ ​commercial​ ​casual​ ​dining​ ​restaurant. Res03

A​ ​commercial​ ​sit-down​ ​restaurant. Res04

A vegetarian/vegan restaurant with emphasis Res05

on sustainably grown and locally sourced
ingredients.

A cafe/restaurant which places emphasis on Res06

carbon​ ​footprint​ ​of​ ​its​ ​dishes.

A burger restaurant fast food chain which Res07

places emphasis on carbon footprint of its
dishes.

Appendix​ ​IV

Appendix​ ​V

List​ ​of​ ​Axial​ ​codes​ ​used

75
Sourcing
Supplier​ ​Criteria
Ingredient​ ​List​ ​Driver
Ingredient​ ​Procurement​ ​Criteria
Ingredient​ ​Decision​ ​Influence
Procurement​ ​Decision​ ​trade-off
Usage​ ​General​ ​Criteria
Usage​ ​Inventory​ ​Influence
Usage​ ​Tracking
Usage​ ​Drivers
Usage​ ​Decision​ ​challenge
Usage​ ​Alternatives​ ​Explore
Menu​ ​Development​ ​drivers
Menu​ ​Development​ ​Influence
Dish​ ​preference​ ​driver
Choice​ ​Influencer​ ​tool
Environmental​ ​Concern
Carbon​ ​footprint​ ​relevance
Sustainable​ ​practice​ ​adoption​ ​challenge

Appendix​ ​VI

List​ ​of​ ​inference​ ​codes:

Procurement​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​preference
Procurement​ ​priorities
Procurement​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​challenges
Usage​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​preference
Usage​ ​priorities
Usage​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​challenges
Sales​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​preference
Sales​ ​priorities
Sales​ ​sustainability​ ​choices​ ​challenges
Concern​ ​for​ ​environmental​ ​impact​ ​of​ ​restaurant
Carbon​ ​footprint​ ​relevance
Sustainable​ ​practice​ ​adoption​ ​challenge

76
77