Issuu on Google+

2013 report into consumer attitudes towards sustainability in restaurants


Sustainable Restaurant Association – 25 Gerrard Street, London, W1D 6JL 020 7479 4224 – www.thesra.org

hello@thesra.org – @the_SRA – facebook.com/SustRes


CONTENTS PAGE

Executive summery – page 3 The changing landscape of consumer concern – page 5 Sustainability expectations and pice – page 13 The desire for better communications – page 15 Predictions – page 21 Appendix – page 23


EXECUTIVE SUMMERY Sustainable Restaurant Association The Sustainable Restaurant Association is a not–for–profit membership organisation helping restaurants become more sustainable and diners make more sustainable choices when dining out. We help our member restaurants source food more sustainably, manage resources more efficiently and work more closely with their communities. Since our launch in 2009 we have carried out regular research to investigate consumer attitudes towards sustainability in the restaurant sector. This is the third wave of research.

Research Methodology The findings in this report are drawn from a series of surveys of a randomised sample of the UK population (1000 people), together with interviews conducted with 17 SRA Member restaurants, a review of the recent media coverage on sustainability issues and findings from a panel discussion held at the 2013 Sustainable Restaurant Awards. We have also drawn from our expertise working in the sector with both consumers and restaurants to interpret the findings presented by the data. Fieldwork for this wave of research took place in early 2013 and the following report shows top line findings from in–house analysis. Sub–group reports, corresponding to specific consumer profiles (age, gender, location, socio–economic group) are available on request from the SRA.

Summery Consumer attitudes towards environmental and social issues are in a state of constant flux, reflecting the shifting sands of peer group and media influence, macro–economic trends, world events and personal experience. The findings in this report reflect these changes, with significant shifts in focus between 2009 and 2013.

3


Consumers were asked to choose from a list of 13 sustainability issues and list their top three priorities. Their second most important issue in 2009, organic, slipped to last in 2013. But perhaps more telling, at the top of the 2013 leader board, issues around sourcing, gave way to broader sustainability concerns that incorporate both social and environmental issues.

Question: Which of the following issues do you think are most important for restaurants to focus on? Answer:

2009 1. Locally sourced 2. Organic 3. Sustainable fish

2012 1. Health and nutrition 53% 2. Food waste 53% 3. Locally sourced 46%

This shift reflects an underlying trend among consumers towards a more holistic understanding of sustainability and away from a focus on produce issues. Unlike sourcing issues, where the consumer is directly implicated in the procurement decisions of the restaurant, concerns over issues such as food waste require a more sophisticated understanding of sustainability and indicate that customers are building on their awareness of how the range of issues affects them personally, towards an awareness of how it affects society as a whole. A steady increase in consumer recycling rates highlights how domestic practice can be transformed into increased expectations of all businesses, including restaurants.

4


The impact of the media on consumer attitudes should not be underestimated, and this has become more pronounced with the rapid growth in social media and the way in which campaigns utilise these platforms. The result is that concerns can change extremely rapidly, often from month to month, as awareness of specific issues is raised in both traditional and digital media. This presents a challenge for restaurants seeking to develop a sustainability strategy in response to consumer concerns. The results of the survey show that, on almost every issue, consumers want to know more about sustainability activity than they are currently hearing from restaurants. And when they don’t want to hear about specific issues they would at least like restaurants to be transparent about their sustainability performance as a whole. It seems that the only option for restaurants is to adopt a holistic approach to sustainability management so that, when consumers begin to raise questions about, for example, animal welfare, they are immediately able to offer a credible response, either about the action they have taken or how it figures in their plans.

“...consumers want to know more about sustainability activity than they are currently hearing from restaurants...�

1. THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF CONSUMER CONCERN 1.1 The shifts in consumer concern Over the years, we have seen a significant shift in the importance consumers attach to different issues when eating out. The main focus of this report is to understand how and why consumer attitudes towards sustainability in restaurants change over time. Each time we carry out the survey, we ask consumers about their three top sustainability priorities when eating out. In 2009 the top concerns for consumers were local sourcing, sustainable fish and organic produce.

5


In the most recent survey, in 2013, local sourcing remained third, but the top two spots were taken by food waste and health and nutrition – issues which were much lower down the list of priorities in 2009, whilst the previous top issues dropped down the list.

Question: Which of the following issues do you think are most important for restaurants to focus on?

Figure one There are two key explanations for this shift in concerns, which are closely linked: 1. Consumers have a more sophisticated and holistic understanding of sustainability 2. Consumer attention shifts between issues due to influences from the wider world

6


1.2 Consumers have a more sophisticated and holistic understanding of sustainability In this section we offer two explanations for these shifts and explore potential implications for restaurateurs. In 2009 we saw local sourcing, organic produce, employee treatment and sustainable fish selected as the issues consumers most hoped restaurants were taking care of. These choices highlight quite a narrow understanding of, or focus on, sustainability. The top choices in 2013, on the other hand, (food waste, health and nutrition and local sourcing) show a more sophisticated, broader understanding of sustainability, with consumers taking into account both environmental and social considerations. They understand that food waste is a social, environmental and economic concern – people are hungry, waste has an environmental impact and is also a waste of a valuable resource. Consumer interest in health and nutrition reveals that they are not only interested in learning about calorie content (49%) but also in hearing about fat content (49%), salt content (42%) and allergen content (24%). Whilst local sourcing remains a top issue, our interpretation is that this has shifted from being a concern about proximity to one about provenanc.

Question: Which, if any, of the following would you like to know more information about when eating out?

Figure two

7


1.3 Consumer attention shifs due to influences from the wider world Equipped with a broader and deeper appreciation of sustainability, consumers are more aware of, and primed to engage with, specific issues and events as they occur, and this sequential engagement corresponds to a cumulative increase in sustainability awareness, with each new issue building on the last. Although consumers are easily drawn to and influenced by single–issue campaigns, and their interest follows a natural cycle of arousal and decline, their overall awareness of general sustainability is incrementally increasing.

Figure three

“...consumers overall awareness of general sustainability is incrementally increasing...�

8


Serial interest in single issues creating increasing cumulative awareness Food waste In order to help a restaurant reduce food waste, would you consider ordering a smaller main course portion at a restaurant if the option was available (and the price reflected the smaller portion)?

Since 2009 food waste has become one of the issues to which consumers expect restaurants to pay much more attention. 87% think that the amount of food waste generated by the restaurant industry is a serious issue that must be urgently addressed (SRA 2011), 84% of consumers believe it important for restaurants to try to reduce the amount of food they throw away Figure four and 66% of consumers would consider ordering a smaller main course portion were the option available (SRA 2011). 85% of consumers also believe it is important for restaurants to dispose of food waste in an environmentally responsible way. We can see that food waste has become a particularly important issue in consumers’ eyes, capturing people’s imagination as it touches on social, environmental and economic concerns. Socially, they see that whilst food is wasted in the UK, many are experiencing food poverty here and in countries across the globe. Environmentally, they see the disposal of food waste as a serious concern, with increasing awareness of rising landfill levels and the related harmful toxins and greenhouse gas emissions. And lastly, they see the economic benefits of throwing away less food, particularly in a recession. Food waste has been a hot topic in the media over the last 2–3 years too, with reports such as Global Food – Waste Not Want Not, published by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in February 2013, receiving widespread coverage.

9


That report revealed that almost half of all food produced in the world is wasted. Studies, including the SRA’s own Too Good To Waste, have shown that as much as 600,000 tonnes of food is thrown away by UK restaurants every year. And as consumers are encouraged to recycle and dispose of their food waste responsibly at home, so their expectation grows for the restaurants at which they dine to do the same.

Would you consider taking leftovers from your meal at a restaurant home with you if you were provided with a container by the restaurant?

Figure five

One of the remaining barriers to progress in this area is the reluctance of UK diners to raise the issue. They are naturally reticent about asking waiters about sustainability issues generally, and even more uncomfortable enquiring about food waste. In fact, a quarter of consumers told the SRA in 2011 that they didn’t take away leftovers because they were too embarrassed to ask for a container to take it away – despite 87% of them believing food waste created by restaurants to be a serious issue and 83% agreeing they would consider taking leftovers home if provided with a box. Figure six Question:

What is the main reason that you do not currently do this? To tackle this, the SRA created the Too Good To Waste doggy box, with the intention of highlighting the issue of restaurant food waste and giving diners the confidence to ask to take leftovers home with them. The box, created for the SRA in association with 3663 and One Water, is made of 100% recycled and biodegradable materials making it suitable for recycling and composting, and 25,000 were given away to the more than 100 restaurants that participated in the campaign.

10


Health and nutrition

Eating out is no longer the infrequent treat it once was, and people have started thinking more about the health and nutrition of the meals they eat out of the home. Over the past few years we’ve also seen widespread attention given to these issues, including public health campaigns and the Government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, to which many household brands have signed up. Other leading brands have been pilloried for their poor nutritional performance. Last year the Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development (OECD) ranked the UK as the nation with the biggest obesity problem in Europe, with over a quarter of the population ranked as obese. And, whilst most consumers understand that inactivity is a large factor in this, they’re also aware of the effect of nutrition and diet on health and weight. Media attention around these issues is undoubtedly a major contributory factor in health and nutrition being ranked as a top concern in 2013. Consumers want to feel in control and are no longer parking their worries about health and nutrition at home when they go out to eat.

Local Sourcing Local sourcing was placed at the top of the list of sustainability concerns in 2009, but we believe that consumers’ interpretation of ‘local’ has changed. In 2009 consumers may have been thinking about local sourcing solely in terms of proximity or “food miles”. It now appears that the term has become a proxy or catch–all for a broader range of issues, with local sourcing being understood to cover a number of “virtues” (even if that is misplaced). “Local”, in the context of this survey, is probably being used to indicate the importance to consumers of a range of issues, such as provenance, quality, traceability and seasonality, as well as “food miles”. Traceability has taken on greater importance, particularly in the light of the horsemeat scandal, with a wish to both “shorten” the supply chain and support local producers.

11


Organic Whilst a number of studies show that consumers of all socio–economic groups share a desire to buy responsibly, price can be a barrier, particularly for those who are less affluent. Therefore, during difficult economic times, some consumers feel organic is something on which they may have to compromise. At the same time the argument for organic does not seem to have advanced very much in the public’s mind since 2009 and these findings match figures from the Soil Association that show a decline in sales for organic products in 2012. Whilst it’s interesting to see how issues change in relative importance, it certainly makes a restaurant’s job more difficult, in terms of predicting the issues that consumers really care about at any one point in time.

1.4 It is increasingly difficult for restaurants to accurately predict consumers’ top concerns When we compare consumers’ top concerns with what restaurants believe to be their top concerns, we can see how hard it is for restaurants to decipher what consumers really care about. Comparing this to restaurants’ own concerns or priorities only highlights this difficulty further.

Figure seven

With consumers’ sustainability priorities evolving and new issues constantly rising to attention, it is increasingly difficult for restaurants to know where to focus their attention. Unpredictable, external influencing factors, such as the horsemeat scandal, make this even more difficult. It is important, therefore, for restaurants not to restrict their focus to the issues they believe to be important to consumers, as these can be hard to gauge. We see, in fact, that consumers and restaurants do share many of the same concerns, but there are also many gaps.

12


2. SUSTAINABILITY EXPECTATIONS AND PRICE It isn’t surprising that consumers expect more expensive restaurants to be performing better on all sustainability issues. This mirrors consumer perception in other sectors where sustainability is often thought to be closely linked with price and quality.

Figure eight Considering different types of restaurants, which, if any, of the following commitments would you expect each to be addressing? In restaurants there also is a perceived link between price, quality and sustainability. When charging a higher price, correspondingly high levels of sustainability are expected as well as quality, service and ambience. Whilst consumers undeniably understand that many factors affect price, they do expect a restaurant to act responsibly if a meal is more expensive. This is the case with all the sustainability issues on the list: the more expensive the restaurant, the higher the expectations around sustainability. In other words, more people expect a restaurant that charges £10–£20 to be sustainable across the board, than a restaurant charging £10 and likewise for a restaurant charging £30+ for a meal compared to £20. Since consumers know from their own shopping experience that a free range chicken is more expensive than a standard broiler, it’s perhaps not surprising that they believe that, if they are paying £30+ for a meal, it should be easier for that restaurant to live up to their sustainability expectations.

13


Poorer consumers care too, but they’re more inclined to expect sustainability within the price Whilst the findings above may lead us to believe that consumers care less about the sustainability of cheaper restaurants we find that actually the opposite is true. Consumers from lower socio–economic backgrounds actually have higher than average expectations of the sustainability performance of cheaper restaurants. This suggests that diners eating at less expensive restaurants still care a lot about sustainability, but expect it to be factored into the price. This mirrors findings in Asda’s 2011 Green is Normal study which showed that over 80% of respondents bought green products because they thought it was the right thing to do, but that the same amount expected those products to be priced within their means.

There is less of a shift around expectations for the actions that cost less to implement We see the biggest shift in expectations across the price divide for sustainable fish, free range meat and local sourcing. Issues such as calories on menus, free tap water and the fair distribution of tips, show the smallest variation according to meal price, as these are perceived to incur smaller cost to the business, if any cost at all.

People are prepared to pay more for sustainability In line with their expectations of price and sustainability, consumers are also prepared to pay more for a meal at a restaurant that is investing in sustainability (56%). This indicates that consumers are willing to act on, and pay for, their beliefs, showing that, whilst they may expect more expensive restaurants to be more sustainable, it is also something they think is worth paying more for. Although most consumers are only willing to pay a little more for a meal at a restaurant that invests in sustainability, this can still be seen as a justification for investing in sustainability. Almost a half of consumers (43%) of those asked said they would be prepared to pay up to ten per cent more for their meal in a sustainable restaurant, and an investment in sustainability is one way of attracting new customers and retaining existing ones.

14


The effect of brand names The biggest challenge, however, might rest with the casual dining restaurant sector, where there is stiff competition and whose consumers are price conscious yet have expectations about sustainability. Brands can easily be damaged and restaurants in this sector potentially have a lot to lose by not living up to sustainability expectations. We have seen the effect of this, for example, with IKEA following the horsemeat scandal and with Starbucks with regard to tax. Brand names are often more adversely affected than smaller restaurants because consumers associate the brand more closely with quality and have expectations about behaviour.

So what does this mean for restaurants? • For more expensive restaurants – it means when consumers pay a high price for a meal they expect sustainability to be factored into that price, rather than being a point of difference, and these restaurants will have to do more to impress diners. Luxury is enhanced for consumers when they know the experience is a result of careful and responsible choices. • For mid–priced restaurants – consumers have higher sustainability expectations of these restaurants than they do of cheaper ones, yet they operate in a very competitive space and face an even greater need for transparent communication. • For cheaper restaurants – the fact that expectations of sustainability are often much lower with cheaper restaurants presents a big opportunity, especially for large chains that have made significant sustainability achievements. Pro–actively communicating sustainability activity, even small scale, can prove a worthwhile investment for restaurants, as consumers are likely to be more impressed.

3. THE DESIRE FOR BETTER COMMUNICATIONS 3.1 Current communications More than eight out of ten (85%) of the people we surveyed indicated that they knew little or nothing about the social and environmental standards of places at which they ate, and almost half (49%) did not think they had seen any communication in restaurants on sustainability related issues. This is perhaps surprising considering only 16% of consumers indicated they were not interested in hearing about any of these issues ( see figure nine).

15


Thinking about the restaurants that you regularly eat out in, how much do you think you currently know about their social and environmental standards? Figure nine

89% of consumers also said that they had not received any information about the nutritional value of their meal the last time they ate out. Given 53% said that health and nutrition was the most important sustainability issue for them and given the increased public focus on and consumer concern for improving nutrition, this is an issue on which restaurants will need to focus attention and communicate more. Figure ten

From the following list of social and environmental issues, which if any, do restaurants you regularly eat in communicate to you about (e.g. in the restaurant, on menus, on websites, in newsletters)?

When consumers had heard about sustainability issues from restaurants, the focus was mainly on local sourcing, seasonality, health and nutrition, Fairtrade and organic products. Some of these issues are easier to communicate simply, often through a logo, so it is perhaps unsurprising that these are the topics most communicated about. However, given consumers’ concern about other issues, e.g. food waste, it is important for restaurants to find innovative and interesting ways to communicate their performance on these subjects too.

16


3.1.2 Interest in communications The low level of communication around sustainability contrasts sharply with consumers’ desire to hear about these issues. We find that on ten out of the 13 issues we asked about, consumers would like to hear more than they currently are from restaurants. Unsurprisingly we find that they would especially like to hear more about the issues that rated highest amongst their concerns.

What issues would you like to hear more about from the restaurants you eat in and which issues do you actually want to hear about?

Figure eleven

Our survey also finds that 81 % of consumers believe there should be greater transparency around sourcing and the production of food. This shows us that, whilst not all consumers want extensive communication on specific sustainability issues, the large majority would at least like the information to be available should they look for it. It is worth also noting that our research was conducted in the very early stages of the horse meat scandal and consumer attitudes towards transparency on food sourcing may well have increased since then.

17


3.2 How restaurants should approach communicating sustainability We know that consumers are concerned about sustainability and we know that they want to hear about it. But we also understand that it can sometimes be difficult for restaurants to find effective ways to communicate sustainability activity. Many restaurants worry that consumers will find messages about sustainability boring and/or overbearing, to the point that they spoil the dining experience. Also, given the sheer breadth of sustainability issues, it can be hard to communicate these in a way which is interesting and relevant to consumers without overwhelming them. It is important to remember, however that, whilst consumers may not ask about sustainability, they do care and they do want to hear about it. In this section we suggest the approach we would recommend for restaurants to communicate sustainability.

3.2.1 Showing the houses is in order Over recent years, consumers have developed a more sophisticated and holistic understanding of sustainability, and the degree of importance they attach to specific issues can vary as they fall under the media spotlight. This can make it difficult for restaurants to know what to communicate and when. What is clear is that, whilst consumers may or may not want to hear about specific issues, they certainly do want simple, transparent reassurance that the restaurant is taking care of these issues. The first step for restaurants is to reassure consumers that they are thinking about all the key sustainability issues. Some restaurants are not yet doing this, as their customers rarely ask about sustainability, or if they do, generally only focus in on one issue. Our research suggests that, whilst consumers may not be asking questions, they still care about sustainability more broadly and may be looking for information to be communicated in other ways. By communicating their sustainability activity clearly and transparently restaurants will not only be reassuring existing customers, but also sending a positive message to potential customers who have been previously unconvinced of the their commitment to sustainability. When it comes to reassuring consumers about sustainability performance there are options: 1. Using a certification – in this case the SRA logo 2. Making the information readily available for those who want to find it e.g. through informed waiters and on their website 3. Taking action that demonstrates sustainability issues are being tackled.

18


Using the SRA rating The SRA rating is an effective way for restaurants to show consumers they are taking care across a wide range of sustainability issues. The clear rating mechanism (One to Three Stars) means consumers can easily see that a restaurant cares about sustainability and understand how it is performing overall. It provides restaurants with shorthand for communicating their sustainability credentials, negating the need for extensive information.

Which, if any, of the following would you like to know more information about when eating out?

Making information readily available Our research reflects that most consumers want restaurants to be transparent about their sustainability performance. Restaurants can achieve this level of transparency by training front–of–house staff on all the issues so that they are well informed and able to deal with customers’ queries, as well as making the information readily available online. Thus, without overwhelming the consumer, restaurants can inform and elicit trust that they are dealing with sustainability.

19


3.2.2 Making more of specific activity Two compelling examples of practical action demonstrating a serious commitment to sustainability are Wahaca’s participation in the SRA’s Too Good To Waste campaign, and Pret a Manger’s activity to help homeless people.

Wahaca, the London–based small group of Mexican restaurants, was one of the original participants in the SRA’s 2011 campaign, Too Good To Waste, to raise consumer awareness of food waste in restaurants and help restaurants reduce the amount of food they throw away. Wahaca stocked Too Good To Waste doggy boxes and offered them to customers who hadn’t finished their meals. Over a six month period the restaurant group witnessed a 20% reduction in plate waste and demonstrated to customers that it cared about the environment and their wallets, and they continue to offer the boxes today. Restaurants need to find innovative ways of engaging consumers in order to ensure sustainability issues are interesting. They should communicate ideas on all touch points so that customers see it on their website, in store and in all other restaurant communications.

20


4. OUR PREDICTIONS FOR 2013/14 Working closely with restaurants, food service companies and consumers has given the Sustainable Restaurant Association a unique insight into consumer attitudes to sustainability within the restaurant context. Whilst we have seen many shifts over the past few years, we predict that the top three issues in 2013/4 will be drawn from these four: Working closely with restaurants, food service companies and consumers has given the Sustainable Restaurant Association a unique insight into consumer attitudes to sustainability within the restaurant context. Whilst we have seen many shifts over the past few years, we predict that the top three issues in 2013/4 will be drawn from these four: 1. Animal Welfare – while historically opinions around animal welfare have been largely polarised, it appears those who were previously uncommitted, are voicing their disquiet at the way in which our industrialised food system is treating livestock. We see this groundswell both quantitatively in the data, with animal welfare being one of only two issues (together with food–waste) that has climbed in importance each year and more qualitatively in the buzz around food and sustainability. The issue appears ripe for media exposure and our prediction is a breakthrough year for animal welfare issues, with the possibility of standards such as Red Tractor and RSPCA’s Freedom Food being closely examined and chicken once more being in the spotlight 2. Health and nutrition – with no let–up anticipated in the attention focused on this issue, we see a continued consumer desire for restaurants to keep on top of this issue and to clearly communicate the nutritional value of the food they are serving. 3. Local sourcing – we predict this will continue to be rated highly, in the light of the long running horsemeat scandal and as consumers choose it as a proxy for a number of other topics (knowing what’s in the product, trusting farmers, supporting local communities and feeling confident in the food chain). 4. Carbon Footprint – Despite the early demise of Otarian, the first restaurant to put the carbon footprint of the food at the heart of its offering, climate change has not gone away as an issue and we see consumer concerns over the carbon impact of food as the dark horse of the group. As with animal welfare, carbon footprint is one of the few issues trending higher over the last three years, and this, combined with the distinct possibility of a climate change related event in the next 12 months, generating mass media coverage, means we include carbon footprint as the outsider which may top the leaderboard of concerns in 2013/14.

21


“As a chef, it is always important to listen to what your customers really care about. So this research makes fascinating reading and will help my fellow restaurateurs and I match diners’ priorities and think more about how we tell our customers about all the good things we are doing. This report provides further evidence that our customers not only want to enjoy high quality food, but also want to know that the restaurants they eat in are managing their business responsibly.�

22


APPENDIX Q.2 Which 3 of the following issues do you think are most important for restaurants to focus on? Base: All respondents Gender

Age

Total

Male

Female

Unweighted base

867

432

435

Weighted base

877

432

444

Customer health and nutrition

467

229

238

53%

53%

54%

Food waste

Locally sourced products

Employee treatment

Animal welfare

Seasonality of products

Fairtrade products

Carbon footprint

Sourcing of fish stocks

Local community involvement

General water usage

Organic products

Bottled water usage

Social Grade

Region

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

AB

C1

C2

DE

Scotland

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humberside

West Midlands

East Midlands

Wales

Eastern

London

South East

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

63

68

77

66

65

128

144

133

92

98

33

25

52

43

37

35

26

47

55

76

60%

47%

46%

45%

54%

66%

57%

51%

50%

54%

44%

61%

49%

54%

42%

61%

56%

64%

50%

64%

18-24

466

220

246

66

84

85

75

64

91

134

145

102

85

45

31

57

44

40

26

22

40

58

65

53%

51%

55%

63%

58%

51%

52%

53%

47%

53%

55%

56%

47%

60%

74%

54%

56%

46%

45%

48%

55%

53%

54%

407

204

204

23

37

77

64

81

124

130

112

82

82

31

21

53

35

43

25

22

44

37

51

46%

47%

46%

22%

26%

47%

44%

67%

64%

52%

43%

45%

46%

41%

50%

50%

45%

50%

43%

48%

60%

34%

43%

349

171

178

44

59

56

60

49

81

91

108

80

70

38

8

44

28

28

27

27

21

41

51

40%

40%

40%

42%

41%

34%

41%

41%

42%

36%

41%

44%

39%

50%

21%

42%

35%

33%

47%

58%

29%

38%

43%

214

84

130

22

33

45

53

31

30

59

67

42

46

13

3

26

20

21

11

13

25

26

29

24%

19%

29%

21%

23%

27%

36%

26%

16%

23%

26%

23%

26%

18%

8%

25%

25%

25%

20%

27%

33%

23%

24%

194

95

100

8

28

34

38

29

57

68

47

39

40

23

6

27

14

18

16

6

21

21

24

22%

22%

22%

8%

19%

21%

26%

24%

29%

27%

18%

21%

22%

31%

14%

26%

18%

21%

28%

12%

29%

19%

20%

121

61

59

19

17

30

25

12

18

29

38

21

32

12

8

13

13

15

7

5

8

16

15

14%

14%

13%

18%

12%

18%

17%

10%

9%

12%

15%

12%

18%

16%

20%

12%

17%

18%

12%

12%

10%

15%

12%

106

67

40

19

33

24

18

5

7

26

40

16

25

3

4

12

13

29

3

1

1

18

8

12%

15%

9%

18%

23%

15%

12%

4%

4%

10%

15%

9%

14%

4%

11%

12%

17%

33%

6%

3%

2%

16%

7%

92

52

40

14

10

26

9

12

21

25

30

18

19

10

7

8

11

8

6

1

4

15

10

11%

12%

9%

13%

7%

15%

6%

10%

11%

10%

11%

10%

11%

14%

17%

7%

14%

9%

10%

2%

5%

14%

8%

71

39

32

13

18

13

12

3

11

17

21

14

19

9

4

6

4

5

6

8

1

11

8

8%

9%

7%

12%

13%

8%

8%

2%

6%

7%

8%

8%

11%

12%

11%

5%

5%

6%

10%

18%

2%

10%

7%

57

26

30

15

16

10

9

5

3

13

18

12

14

2

4

4

7

5

4

1

7

10

7

6%

6%

7%

14%

11%

6%

6%

4%

2%

5%

7%

6%

8%

2%

10%

4%

9%

6%

7%

3%

10%

10%

6%

48

25

23

5

18

11

6

3

4

9

12

17

10

1

1

10

-

4

5

6

-

13

4

5%

6%

5%

5%

13%

7%

4%

3%

2%

3%

5%

9%

6%

1%

3%

10%

-

5%

8%

14%

-

12%

4%

38

24

15

5

10

9

3

5

6

10

14

13

1

5

-

3

4

6

1

-

2

8

8

4%

5%

3%

5%

7%

6%

2%

4%

3%

4%

5%

7%

1%

6%

-

3%

5%

7%

2%

-

2%

7%

7%

Prepared by Populus Q.4 Thinking about the restaurants that you regularly eat out in, how much do you think you currently know about their social and environmental standards? Base: All respondents Gender

Age

Social Grade

Region

Employment Sector

Total

Male

Femal e

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

AB

C1

C2

DE

Scotlan d

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humbersi de

Public

Private

Unweighted base

867

432

435

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

82

91

272

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

NET: Know anything

384

209

175

46

81

80

53

48

75

119

106

88

72

20

13

55

36

40

27

30

27

54

48

34

59

171

44%

48%

39%

44%

57%

48%

36%

39%

39%

47%

40%

48%

40%

27%

32%

52%

45%

47%

46%

64%

37%

49%

41%

41%

46%

47%

NET: Know most/ all I know all about (4) their social and environmental standards I know most things (3) about their social and environmental standards I know quite a lot (2) about their social and environmental standards I know a little bit (1) about their social and environmental standards I know nothing (0) about their social and environmental standards

Not applicable

Mean Standard deviation Standard error

West Midlan ds

East Midlan ds

Wales

Easter n

London

South East

South West

71

50

21

12

31

11

7

5

4

16

22

24

9

3

3

11

3

13

1

7

2

16

8

4

18

39

8%

11%

5%

11%

22%

7%

5%

4%

2%

6%

8%

13%

5%

4%

7%

10%

4%

15%

1%

15%

2%

15%

7%

5%

14%

11%

25

21

4

5

9

6

3

-

2

10

6

7

2

-

2

3

1

1

-

1

-

10

4

3

2

18

3%

5%

1%

5%

6%

4%

2%

-

1%

4%

2%

4%

1%

-

6%

3%

1%

1%

-

2%

-

9%

3%

3%

2%

5%

46

28

17

6

22

5

5

5

2

6

16

16

7

3

*

8

3

11

1

6

2

6

4

2

15

21

5%

7%

4%

6%

16%

3%

3%

4%

1%

3%

6%

9%

4%

4%

1%

8%

3%

13%

1%

13%

2%

6%

4%

2%

12%

6%

61

33

28

6

12

15

10

11

7

16

17

14

14

2

2

9

7

5

4

5

6

10

3

9

9

29

7%

8%

6%

6%

8%

9%

7%

9%

4%

6%

7%

8%

8%

2%

6%

9%

8%

6%

7%

11%

8%

9%

2%

11%

7%

8%

252

126

127

28

38

54

36

32

64

87

66

50

49

16

8

35

26

23

22

17

19

28

37

21

33

103

29%

29%

29%

27%

27%

33%

25%

26%

33%

35%

25%

27%

27%

22%

20%

34%

33%

26%

39%

38%

26%

25%

31%

25%

26%

28%

492

224

269

59

63

86

92

74

119

133

157

94

109

54

28

50

43

46

31

17

47

56

70

50

69

193

56%

52%

61%

56%

43%

52%

64%

61%

61%

53%

60%

52%

60%

73%

68%

48%

55%

53%

54%

36%

63%

51%

59%

59%

54%

53%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.7

0.84

0.56

0.77

1.15

0.75

0.55

0.56

0.48

0.7

0.66

0.86

0.58

0.37

0.57

0.84

0.64

0.83

0.55

1.08

0.5

0.96

0.61

0.65

0.82

0.81

1

1.13

0.84

1.12

1.3

1.01

0.9

0.82

0.71

0.97

1.01

1.14

0.86

0.71

1.07

1.04

0.86

1.11

0.67

1.1

0.75

1.29

0.96

0.98

1.1

1.12

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.13

0.14

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.04

0.06

0.06

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.16

0.1

0.1

0.12

0.08

0.17

0.09

0.12

0.08

0.11

0.12

0.07

Unweighted base

867

432

435

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

82

91

272

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

NET: Know anything

384

209

175

46

81

80

53

48

75

119

106

88

72

20

13

55

36

40

27

30

27

54

48

34

59

171

44%

48%

39%

44%

57%

48%

36%

39%

39%

47%

40%

48%

40%

27%

32%

52%

45%

47%

46%

64%

37%

49%

41%

41%

46%

47%

NET: Know most/ all I know all about (4) their social and environmental standards I know most things (3) about their social and environmental standards I know quite a lot (2) about their social and environmental standards I know a little bit (1) about their social and environmental standards I know nothing (0) about their social and environmental standards

Mean Standard deviation Standard error

Prepared by Populus

23

71

50

21

12

31

11

7

5

4

16

22

24

9

3

3

11

3

13

1

7

2

16

8

4

18

39

8%

11%

5%

11%

22%

7%

5%

4%

2%

6%

8%

13%

5%

4%

7%

10%

4%

15%

1%

15%

2%

15%

7%

5%

14%

11%

25

21

4

5

9

6

3

-

2

10

6

7

2

-

2

3

1

1

-

1

-

10

4

3

2

18

3%

5%

1%

5%

6%

4%

2%

-

1%

4%

2%

4%

1%

-

6%

3%

1%

1%

-

2%

-

9%

3%

3%

2%

5%

46

28

17

6

22

5

5

5

2

6

16

16

7

3

*

8

3

11

1

6

2

6

4

2

15

21

5%

7%

4%

6%

16%

3%

3%

4%

1%

3%

6%

9%

4%

4%

1%

8%

3%

13%

1%

13%

2%

6%

4%

2%

12%

6%

61

33

28

6

12

15

10

11

7

16

17

14

14

2

2

9

7

5

4

5

6

10

3

9

9

29

7%

8%

6%

6%

8%

9%

7%

9%

4%

6%

7%

8%

8%

2%

6%

9%

8%

6%

7%

11%

8%

9%

2%

11%

7%

8%

252

126

127

28

38

54

36

32

64

87

66

50

49

16

8

35

26

23

22

17

19

28

37

21

33

103

29%

29%

29%

27%

27%

33%

25%

26%

33%

35%

25%

27%

27%

22%

20%

34%

33%

26%

39%

38%

26%

25%

31%

25%

26%

28%

492

224

269

59

63

86

92

74

119

133

157

94

109

54

28

50

43

46

31

17

47

56

70

50

69

193

56%

52%

61%

56%

43%

52%

64%

61%

61%

53%

60%

52%

60%

73%

68%

48%

55%

53%

54%

36%

63%

51%

59%

59%

54%

53%

0.7

0.84

0.56

0.77

1.15

0.75

0.55

0.56

0.48

0.7

0.66

0.86

0.58

0.37

0.57

0.84

0.64

0.83

0.55

1.08

0.5

0.96

0.61

0.65

0.82

0.81

1

1.13

0.84

1.12

1.3

1.01

0.9

0.82

0.71

0.97

1.01

1.14

0.86

0.71

1.07

1.04

0.86

1.11

0.67

1.1

0.75

1.29

0.96

0.98

1.1

1.12

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.13

0.14

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.04

0.06

0.06

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.16

0.1

0.1

0.12

0.08

0.17

0.09

0.12

0.08

0.11

0.12

0.07


Table 8

Q.6 Which three issues would you be most interested in hearing more about from the restaurants you most regularly eat in? Base: All respondents Gender

Age

Social Grade

Region

Employment Sector

DE

Scotlan d

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humbersi de

West Midlan ds

East Midlan ds

Wales

Easter n

London

South East

South West

Total

Male

Femal e

Public

Private

Unweighted base

867

432

435

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

82

91

272

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

NET: Any

739

356

384

90

119

131

127

104

169

221

212

159

147

57

33

91

56

77

50

44

69

90

104

67

103

309

84%

82%

86%

85%

83%

79%

87%

85%

87%

88%

81%

88%

81%

77%

81%

87%

71%

89%

86%

95%

94%

82%

88%

80%

81%

85%

Locally sourced products Customer health and nutrition

Animal welfare

Food waste

Employee treatment

Seasonality of products

Fairtrade products Local community involvement

Sourcing of fish stocks

Carbon footprint

Organic products

General water usage

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

AB

C1

C2

366

181

185

24

39

75

59

60

109

124

104

72

67

28

17

49

25

45

27

16

41

24

54

39

40

141

42%

42%

42%

23%

27%

45%

41%

49%

56%

49%

40%

39%

37%

38%

42%

47%

31%

52%

47%

34%

56%

22%

46%

46%

31%

39%

353

179

174

37

63

63

48

47

95

101

108

76

68

20

16

46

27

44

22

17

33

45

52

30

35

146

40%

42%

39%

35%

44%

38%

33%

39%

49%

40%

41%

42%

38%

27%

39%

44%

34%

51%

38%

38%

44%

41%

44%

36%

27%

40%

225

82

143

33

34

40

52

33

35

55

73

46

52

20

7

22

14

24

13

14

28

28

30

26

39

103

26%

19%

32%

31%

24%

24%

35%

27%

18%

22%

28%

25%

29%

27%

17%

21%

18%

28%

22%

30%

37%

25%

25%

31%

30%

28%

222

97

125

27

39

29

53

29

45

61

76

47

38

19

13

26

15

13

17

16

22

34

35

13

30

103

25%

22%

28%

26%

27%

17%

37%

24%

23%

24%

29%

26%

21%

25%

30%

24%

19%

15%

30%

34%

29%

31%

29%

15%

24%

28%

213

110

103

23

24

26

42

40

57

59

58

56

40

21

5

24

24

15

15

14

17

23

34

21

30

93

24%

25%

23%

22%

17%

15%

29%

33%

29%

23%

22%

31%

22%

28%

12%

23%

30%

17%

26%

30%

23%

21%

29%

25%

24%

25%

180

86

95

14

24

31

30

27

56

68

40

33

39

19

7

24

11

17

17

9

17

16

26

19

29

61

21%

20%

21%

13%

16%

19%

21%

22%

29%

27%

15%

18%

22%

25%

16%

23%

14%

20%

29%

18%

23%

15%

22%

22%

22%

17%

156

71

84

24

22

32

31

22

25

52

46

26

31

16

6

17

11

14

12

13

16

22

20

10

25

72

18%

17%

19%

22%

15%

19%

22%

18%

13%

21%

18%

14%

17%

22%

14%

16%

13%

16%

20%

28%

22%

20%

17%

12%

19%

20%

132

70

62

13

21

32

25

15

26

37

29

31

34

8

10

12

12

21

7

10

9

12

17

13

26

38

15%

16%

14%

13%

15%

20%

17%

12%

13%

15%

11%

17%

19%

11%

24%

11%

16%

24%

12%

21%

12%

11%

14%

16%

20%

10%

119

66

53

19

12

20

14

16

37

40

34

23

21

9

5

14

11

14

6

5

6

10

22

18

14

43

14%

15%

12%

18%

8%

12%

10%

13%

19%

16%

13%

13%

12%

12%

11%

13%

13%

16%

10%

11%

7%

9%

19%

22%

11%

12%

95

46

49

24

32

16

12

7

5

26

26

17

27

5

6

16

8

12

4

1

8

19

8

8

22

45

11%

11%

11%

23%

22%

9%

8%

6%

2%

10%

10%

9%

15%

6%

15%

15%

10%

13%

7%

3%

11%

18%

7%

9%

17%

12%

77

36

41

13

30

15

4

6

9

21

20

23

12

4

4

14

2

8

7

12

4

14

6

3

9

41

9%

8%

9%

13%

21%

9%

3%

5%

5%

8%

8%

13%

7%

5%

11%

13%

3%

9%

12%

27%

5%

13%

5%

3%

7%

11%

56

28

28

14

16

11

7

5

4

15

14

20

7

2

5

9

6

1

2

2

6

17

5

1

10

31

6%

6%

6%

13%

11%

6%

5%

4%

2%

6%

5%

11%

4%

3%

11%

9%

7%

1%

4%

4%

8%

15%

4%

1%

8%

9%

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

Bottled water usage

23

15

9

3

4

4

2

6

5

6

8

8

2

1

-

2

3

2

-

3

3

6

4

1

3

13

3%

3%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

5%

3%

2%

3%

4%

1%

1%

-

2%

3%

2%

-

6%

4%

5%

3%

1%

3%

3%

I am not interested in hearing about any of these issues

137

77

61

15

25

35

19

18

25

31

50

23

34

17

8

13

23

10

8

2

4

20

14

17

25

55

16%

18%

14%

15%

17%

21%

13%

15%

13%

12%

19%

12%

19%

23%

19%

13%

29%

11%

14%

5%

6%

18%

12%

20%

19%

15%

West Midlan ds

East Midlan ds

Wales

Easter n

London

South East

South West

Prepared by Populus

Q.9 Would you be prepared to pay more for a meal at a restaurant if you knew it was investing in reducing its negative social and environmental impact? Base: All respondents Gender

Age

Social Grade

Region

DE

Scotlan d

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humbersi de

Employment Sector

Total

Male

Femal e

Public

Private

Unweighted base

867

432

435

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

82

91

272

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

NET: Yes

491

238

253

72

93

76

77

64

108

153

142

102

95

36

27

63

33

47

33

32

40

64

69

48

83

193

56%

55%

57%

69%

64%

46%

53%

53%

56%

61%

54%

56%

52%

48%

66%

60%

41%

54%

56%

69%

54%

58%

58%

58%

65%

53%

Yes, and I would (25) be prepared to pay more than a 20% premium Yes, and I would (15) be prepared to pay between 10 and 20% more

Yes, and I would (7.5) be prepared to pay between 5 and 10% more Yes, and I would (2.5) be prepared to pay up to 5% more No, I would not be (0) prepared to pay a premium

Mean Standard deviation Standard error

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

AB

C1

C2

21

12

9

3

11

5

1

1

1

7

4

8

3

1

3

1

3

1

2

1

-

5

1

2

4

11

2%

3%

2%

3%

8%

3%

1%

*

1%

3%

2%

4%

2%

1%

8%

1%

4%

1%

3%

3%

-

5%

1%

3%

3%

3%

92

38

54

12

26

16

14

14

10

35

23

20

14

5

2

13

3

5

5

18

2

11

18

10

29

39

10%

9%

12%

12%

18%

9%

10%

12%

5%

14%

9%

11%

8%

7%

6%

12%

3%

6%

9%

38%

3%

10%

15%

12%

22%

11%

163

92

71

23

28

23

22

18

49

64

47

28

25

12

9

19

10

17

12

8

21

25

21

10

17

73

19%

21%

16%

22%

19%

14%

15%

15%

25%

25%

18%

15%

14%

16%

21%

18%

12%

20%

21%

17%

29%

22%

18%

12%

13%

20%

215

96

118

34

27

33

39

31

49

47

68

46

53

18

13

30

17

23

14

5

17

23

29

26

34

71

24%

22%

27%

33%

19%

20%

27%

25%

25%

19%

26%

26%

29%

24%

31%

29%

22%

27%

23%

11%

22%

21%

24%

31%

27%

19%

386

194

191

33

51

90

68

58

86

99

120

81

86

39

14

41

46

40

25

14

34

46

50

35

45

171

44%

45%

43%

31%

36%

54%

47%

47%

44%

39%

46%

44%

48%

52%

34%

40%

59%

46%

44%

31%

46%

42%

42%

42%

35%

47%

4.19

4.16

4.22

4.87

6.56

3.64

3.51

3.66

3.38

5.13

3.7

4.45

3.33

3.09

5.32

4.17

3.04

3.27

4.28

7.96

3.12

4.97

4.43

4.12

5.76

4.33

5.77

5.76

5.78

5.83

7.6

5.88

5.07

5.15

4.32

6.11

5.28

6.41

5.09

4.76

7.24

5.36

5.83

4.6

5.95

7.13

3.75

6.6

5.67

5.94

6.72

6.05

0.2

0.28

0.28

0.65

0.83

0.54

0.45

0.47

0.23

0.37

0.33

0.53

0.37

0.57

1.1

0.52

0.69

0.51

0.75

1.07

0.47

0.61

0.5

0.66

0.7

0.37

West Midlan ds

East Midlan ds

Wales

Easter n

London

South East

South West

Prepared by Populus

Q.11 The last time you ate out did you receive any information about the nutritional value of your meal? Base: All respondents Gender

Age

Total

Male

Femal e

Unweighted base

867

432

435

Weighted base

877

432

444

Yes

97

51

45

11%

12%

10%

No

Social Grade

Region

Employment Sector

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

AB

C1

C2

DE

Scotlan d

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humbersi de

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

16

22

13

19

9

17

19

32

27

19

4

4

9

10

15

3

8

4

14

15%

15%

8%

13%

8%

9%

7%

12%

15%

11%

5%

9%

9%

13%

18%

6%

16%

6%

13%

18-24

Public

Private

82

91

272

84

128

364

18

8

21

39

15%

9%

16%

11%

780

381

399

89

122

153

126

113

177

233

230

155

161

71

37

96

69

71

54

39

69

96

101

76

107

325

89%

88%

90%

85%

85%

92%

87%

92%

91%

93%

88%

85%

89%

95%

91%

91%

87%

82%

94%

84%

94%

87%

85%

91%

84%

89%

Unweighted base

867

432

435

80

83

117

128

120

339

273

260

148

186

69

43

106

71

80

63

44

63

116

130

82

91

272

Weighted base

877

432

444

105

144

166

145

122

194

252

262

182

180

75

41

105

79

87

58

46

74

110

119

84

128

364

Yes

97

51

45

16

22

13

19

9

17

19

32

27

19

4

4

9

10

15

3

8

4

14

18

8

21

39

11%

12%

10%

15%

15%

8%

13%

8%

9%

7%

12%

15%

11%

5%

9%

9%

13%

18%

6%

16%

6%

13%

15%

9%

16%

11%

No

Prepared by Populus

780

381

399

89

122

153

126

113

177

233

230

155

161

71

37

96

69

71

54

39

69

96

101

76

107

325

89%

88%

90%

85%

85%

92%

87%

92%

91%

93%

88%

85%

89%

95%

91%

91%

87%

82%

94%

84%

94%

87%

85%

91%

84%

89%

24


The Discerning Diner- How consumer's attitude to eating out became more sophisticated