I've spent much of the past week getting reacquainted with that one-time staple of a restaurant writer's life, the announcement of a chain's newest addition. Once the gnats of my in-box, those media alerts all but disappeared during the credit freeze, following conventions like fully staffed restaurants into cryogenic suspension.
They've just recently come back in a flurry, signaling that the glacial ice is finally cracking. It’s no coincidence that the industry had its first IPO in ages during the same week, or that the expanding brands include such woolly mammoths as Arthur Treacher's and Houlihan’s. Money is being invested in restaurants again, and not just the fetching young darlings.
Strangely, most of the announcements could have begun with “Here ye! Hear ye!,” because they read like antiquities in one key respect. I’ve scouted them thoroughly, and rare was the release that cited green touches to the newly opened stores.
I’d taken that as a huge positive at first. Eco-friendly features had become so common that publicists no longer bothered to point them out! Yeah, that must be it! It’d be like bragging that the new place used forks.
But, sadly, that’s not the case. Rather, restaurants had been so hard-pressed for expansion funds that many were loath to expend precious dollars on green features.
You can’t blame them. A starving person isn’t going to ensure that his first relief meal is heart-healthy.
Sadly, they’re going to learn how shortsighted that approach is. Conserving energy and water can have an appreciable impact on profits, while efforts like using recycled construction materials, or recycling and composting garbage, can profoundly raise the top line. We’re fast approaching the point where customers and staff are going to demand a commitment to the environment as the price of their entry.
The operator of Houlihan’s newest store certainly appreciates how the world has changed. The unit features a full composting program, as well as a geothermal HVAC system.
Ditto for the latest Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito combo store, in Anaheim, Calif. It sports an extensive array of energy and water-saving features and equipment.
Certainly not all new restaurants can afford those sorts of green enhancements. But there are plenty of steps that require neither loaned dollars, time or adjustments to a design—actions like using low-flow pre-rinse valves, or posting a local bus schedule in the employee break room, so staffers have the option of taking public transportation instead of relying on a car.
No doubt a new unit has an easier time of being green than one dating back to less eco-conscious times. Opportunities will soon abound for the industry to exercise its commitment to the environment. But first it has to melt its Ice Age attitudes.
Showing posts with label Green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
This stinks
Restaurants have been blamed for many of the earth’s social ills, from obesity to litter to rendering family dinner obsolete. Now it’s being charged with hurting the earth itself.
A new study from Minnesota academics has concluded that restaurants are significant contributors to air pollution. The culprits are the smells given off by a sizzling steak or a baking loaf of bread, since what hits your nose are really little bits of food matter. If food and smoke particles were confetti, eateries would be a veritable non-stop New Year’s Eve celebration, the authors concluded.
Meanwhile, restaurants are drawing heat (and fines) for a clogging of the civic arteries. A number of locations from coast to coast are discovering their infrastructures can’t handle the industry’s output of FOG, the label they’ve given the industrial cholesterols of fat, oil and grease.
If you think that stinks, you’re absolutely right, say the critics. In places like Scottsdale, Ariz., a drainage backup turned an upscale shopping area into a place where sewage workers would hold their noses. Tightly.
Now the Phoenix suburb wants to keep the air smelling like a forest breeze by banning restaurant garbage disposals, which grind food scraps into a mush that can be rinsed down the drain. If the places can’t get rid of food waste that way, reason the proponents, the restaurants will find another way to dispose of their trimmings and plate scrapings. Pipes, air quality and a town’s effluent waters will be spared.
That’s hardly the lone solution to the issue. Other areas are taking the wrist-slap approach, fining places that clog the pipes, or sending them the Roto-Rooter bill for snaking out the muck.
Addressing the polluter accusations is something the industry needs to address from a centralized, 50,000-foot perspective. But the FOG issue should be seized as an opportunity to resolve two problems in one flush.
Ask any national chain about composting, or deflecting food scraps from the waste stream for use by agriculture or industry, and you’ll hear how difficult it is to take that greener course. The pertinent regulations are currently a hodgepodge, varying widely from haven to haven. Even if you can navigate the quagmire, there’s usually no infrastructure in place to handle the output.
They also lament that few areas are striving to create a system, much less a universal program that’d be the same from Maine to California.
Much has been reported in the last year or so about turning used fryer oil into biodiesel fuel, and that’s a real movement. But, as hotel chains readily attest, it’s still hard to put a reclamation program in place in some areas. In any case, the process has to be set up market by market, instead of plugging into a common network.
As the FOG issue continues to fester, the industry faces an opportunity to promote composting on a concerted basis. A botched effort would really be a stinker.
A new study from Minnesota academics has concluded that restaurants are significant contributors to air pollution. The culprits are the smells given off by a sizzling steak or a baking loaf of bread, since what hits your nose are really little bits of food matter. If food and smoke particles were confetti, eateries would be a veritable non-stop New Year’s Eve celebration, the authors concluded.
Meanwhile, restaurants are drawing heat (and fines) for a clogging of the civic arteries. A number of locations from coast to coast are discovering their infrastructures can’t handle the industry’s output of FOG, the label they’ve given the industrial cholesterols of fat, oil and grease.
If you think that stinks, you’re absolutely right, say the critics. In places like Scottsdale, Ariz., a drainage backup turned an upscale shopping area into a place where sewage workers would hold their noses. Tightly.
Now the Phoenix suburb wants to keep the air smelling like a forest breeze by banning restaurant garbage disposals, which grind food scraps into a mush that can be rinsed down the drain. If the places can’t get rid of food waste that way, reason the proponents, the restaurants will find another way to dispose of their trimmings and plate scrapings. Pipes, air quality and a town’s effluent waters will be spared.
That’s hardly the lone solution to the issue. Other areas are taking the wrist-slap approach, fining places that clog the pipes, or sending them the Roto-Rooter bill for snaking out the muck.
Addressing the polluter accusations is something the industry needs to address from a centralized, 50,000-foot perspective. But the FOG issue should be seized as an opportunity to resolve two problems in one flush.
Ask any national chain about composting, or deflecting food scraps from the waste stream for use by agriculture or industry, and you’ll hear how difficult it is to take that greener course. The pertinent regulations are currently a hodgepodge, varying widely from haven to haven. Even if you can navigate the quagmire, there’s usually no infrastructure in place to handle the output.
They also lament that few areas are striving to create a system, much less a universal program that’d be the same from Maine to California.
Much has been reported in the last year or so about turning used fryer oil into biodiesel fuel, and that’s a real movement. But, as hotel chains readily attest, it’s still hard to put a reclamation program in place in some areas. In any case, the process has to be set up market by market, instead of plugging into a common network.
As the FOG issue continues to fester, the industry faces an opportunity to promote composting on a concerted basis. A botched effort would really be a stinker.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Chipotle to try a new design, development strategy
Chipotle’s menu tweaks drew Balloon Boy-scale coverage when the burrito chain previewed them last spring. But changes in the concept’s design and development strategy are slipping past almost without notice. And that’s surprising, given how the concept is really tinkering with its DNA this time.
Officials disclosed plans yesterday to revamp the layout of stores to reduce energy consumption, crewmember motion, and construction costs. New stores will also have less stainless steel and more tiling in their kitchens, a switch that will ease cleaning operations, the execs said.
At the same time, the chain will broaden its development criteria to include what co-CEO Monty Moran characterized as “Tier 2 trade areas,” or locations with lower but acceptable traffic and enticingly low development costs. Because the so-called Model A restaurants will be less expensive to build, they can provide a better return than conventional sites, even with a lower sales volume, he explained.
He indicated that as many as 30 of those second-tier sites could be developed during 2010, or roughly one-fourth of all the locations that come on-line. CFO Jack Hartung said that mix would lower the average cost of new sites to $850,000 each, from the current $900,000.
Part of that rollback, Hartung indicated, will be generated by changes in the standard format and design of stores.
Founder and co-CEO Steve Ells explained that Chipotle wants to get back to what it was when he launched the concept.
“Our earliest restaurants were generally smaller, simpler and very efficient,” he told financial analysts during a conference call. “As we grew, our restaurants became larger, more architecturally complex, and in some instances less efficient than before.” Now, he said, it’s back to the future.
The layout of units will be revamped “to suggest a flow in the restaurants rather than physical barriers,” he said.
Ells didn’t explain how that would be achieved, but did offer that workstations would both be expanded and set up to eliminated wasted action on the part of employees. He did not say if those adjustments would reduce labor costs.
Definite savings would come from changes in lighting, equipment, and construction materials, he noted. For instance, the chain is switching to a “European-style plancha, which is a flat-top grill,” instead of using a griddle, Ells explained. The device is also smaller than the equipment it replaced, which in turn enables a smaller vent and HVAC system to be used, the CIA grad suggested.
“Over the years, we went through a 10-year period of double-digit comps, and as we saw our volumes go up, we needed to react to those volumes,” he told the portfolio managers participating in the call. “So as we built new restaurants, we built them bigger. We were cooking a lot more chicken and steak on the grill, so we got a bigger grill. In order to accommodate that bigger grill, you have to have a bigger hood. In order to have a bigger hood, you have to have more make-up air and have a larger air conditioning unit on top. In order to do that, you have to have more power coming to the building.”
He also noted the changeover to white tiles in the kitchens. When the new facings were first tested, some bloggers said the surface switch would make stores more eco-friendly, since tiles are easier to recover and reuse than stainless steel. But Chipotle execs didn’t mention any green advantages, other than the cash that would be saved overall with the new design.
Analysts on the call pressed Ells about the change, perhaps out of shock. Design has been hailed by Chipotle as an integral part of the concept. Indeed, any die-hard Chipotle follower knows that a design specialist was one of Ells’ first hires when he was building a team, and the look of stores is often cited as a key part of the chain’s character.
The stockpickers also voiced some concern about the new siting strategy. As Moran acknowledged, Chipotle has traditionally sought out locations that provide high visibility to a heavy stream of passers-by. Those developments were expensive, but the units would open to instant success, with “superior returns” from sales topping $1.3 million a year, he said.
Are you worried that these second-tier stores might siphon sales away from units in primo locations?, one analyst asked.
If anything, this approach will allow the chain to expand into more unfamiliar markets, lessening the chances of cannibalization, Moran said.
The analysts seemed more comfortable with Chipotle’s plans to expand abroad, another departure of sorts for the brand. Its one market outside of the United States at present is Toronto. But Ells said a restaurant will be opened in London during the second quarter of 2010.
A transcript of the conference call was made available by the SeekingAlpha financial information service.
Officials disclosed plans yesterday to revamp the layout of stores to reduce energy consumption, crewmember motion, and construction costs. New stores will also have less stainless steel and more tiling in their kitchens, a switch that will ease cleaning operations, the execs said.
At the same time, the chain will broaden its development criteria to include what co-CEO Monty Moran characterized as “Tier 2 trade areas,” or locations with lower but acceptable traffic and enticingly low development costs. Because the so-called Model A restaurants will be less expensive to build, they can provide a better return than conventional sites, even with a lower sales volume, he explained.
He indicated that as many as 30 of those second-tier sites could be developed during 2010, or roughly one-fourth of all the locations that come on-line. CFO Jack Hartung said that mix would lower the average cost of new sites to $850,000 each, from the current $900,000.
Part of that rollback, Hartung indicated, will be generated by changes in the standard format and design of stores.
Founder and co-CEO Steve Ells explained that Chipotle wants to get back to what it was when he launched the concept.
“Our earliest restaurants were generally smaller, simpler and very efficient,” he told financial analysts during a conference call. “As we grew, our restaurants became larger, more architecturally complex, and in some instances less efficient than before.” Now, he said, it’s back to the future.
The layout of units will be revamped “to suggest a flow in the restaurants rather than physical barriers,” he said.
Ells didn’t explain how that would be achieved, but did offer that workstations would both be expanded and set up to eliminated wasted action on the part of employees. He did not say if those adjustments would reduce labor costs.
Definite savings would come from changes in lighting, equipment, and construction materials, he noted. For instance, the chain is switching to a “European-style plancha, which is a flat-top grill,” instead of using a griddle, Ells explained. The device is also smaller than the equipment it replaced, which in turn enables a smaller vent and HVAC system to be used, the CIA grad suggested.
“Over the years, we went through a 10-year period of double-digit comps, and as we saw our volumes go up, we needed to react to those volumes,” he told the portfolio managers participating in the call. “So as we built new restaurants, we built them bigger. We were cooking a lot more chicken and steak on the grill, so we got a bigger grill. In order to accommodate that bigger grill, you have to have a bigger hood. In order to have a bigger hood, you have to have more make-up air and have a larger air conditioning unit on top. In order to do that, you have to have more power coming to the building.”
He also noted the changeover to white tiles in the kitchens. When the new facings were first tested, some bloggers said the surface switch would make stores more eco-friendly, since tiles are easier to recover and reuse than stainless steel. But Chipotle execs didn’t mention any green advantages, other than the cash that would be saved overall with the new design.
Analysts on the call pressed Ells about the change, perhaps out of shock. Design has been hailed by Chipotle as an integral part of the concept. Indeed, any die-hard Chipotle follower knows that a design specialist was one of Ells’ first hires when he was building a team, and the look of stores is often cited as a key part of the chain’s character.
The stockpickers also voiced some concern about the new siting strategy. As Moran acknowledged, Chipotle has traditionally sought out locations that provide high visibility to a heavy stream of passers-by. Those developments were expensive, but the units would open to instant success, with “superior returns” from sales topping $1.3 million a year, he said.
Are you worried that these second-tier stores might siphon sales away from units in primo locations?, one analyst asked.
If anything, this approach will allow the chain to expand into more unfamiliar markets, lessening the chances of cannibalization, Moran said.
The analysts seemed more comfortable with Chipotle’s plans to expand abroad, another departure of sorts for the brand. Its one market outside of the United States at present is Toronto. But Ells said a restaurant will be opened in London during the second quarter of 2010.
A transcript of the conference call was made available by the SeekingAlpha financial information service.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Random thoughts II
Two weeks ago I gave a presentation on restaurant concepts to a class at the Institute of Culinary Education in New York City. It was the second time I’ve guest-lectured at the facility, which is one of the under-appreciated gems of the New York culinary scene.
Like last time, the students seemed obsessed with Chipotle, particularly its distinction as a sizeable chain that didn’t make them cluck in disapproval.
Unlike last time, I was asked during this guest lecture for my opinion of what chains are leading the pack in their green efforts. I cited Starbucks, Burgerville and McDonald’s. Interestingly, the mention of McDonald’s drew nods of agreement, not dumbfounded surprise.
Like last time, the students seemed obsessed with Chipotle, particularly its distinction as a sizeable chain that didn’t make them cluck in disapproval.
Unlike last time, I was asked during this guest lecture for my opinion of what chains are leading the pack in their green efforts. I cited Starbucks, Burgerville and McDonald’s. Interestingly, the mention of McDonald’s drew nods of agreement, not dumbfounded surprise.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The softer side of McD's marketing
McDonald’s makes so much noise with its mega-sized marketing budget that it’s sometimes difficult to detect its soft-sell promotional efforts. That’s a shame, since those programs are not only among the brand’s most creative, but a benefit to plenty of other players as well.
Consider, for instance, what the chain is reportedly doing at 400 units in North Carolina and Tennessee. Local teachers will be working as crew members in the stores tonight, drawing soft drinks, cleaning tables, filling drive-thru orders and the like. In exchange, the restaurants will contribute a portion of sales from the three-hour stint to short-funded programs in the teachers’ schools.
Imagine the draw for a student of knowing his or her teacher will be waiting on them if they can talk the folks into a McDonald’s run. It sounds like a very powerful traffic booster.
But the benefits extend beyond the top and bottom lines. Educators readily acknowledge that the restaurant industry has a major image problem among teachers, parents and guidance counselors. By getting teachers to experience what it’s like to work in a restaurant, to see firsthand such intangible benefits as working as a team and learning responsibility, McDonald's will no doubt give the industry’s image a vigorous buff. And it won’t exactly hurt the business’s recruitment efforts to have kids see their teachers working in a unit.
That’s only one of the things the chain is quietly doing to foster a bond with the community. Consider, for instance, the recent effort of a single unit in West Miami. The store opened up its doors last week to anyone who wanted to learn about the operation. The franchisee focused on the charitable efforts of the restaurant and the chain, while also noting the options that McDonald’s touts as being more healthful.
According to a news report, the invitation drew about 50 people, including an 8th grade journalism class.
Then there’s McDonald’s green stealth move. Since the start of football season, the chain has been offering pro-football fans a free ticket on public transportation to and from their teams’ stadiums. In exchange for foregoing their cars, the game-goers also get coupons for free sandwiches.
The environmentally minded offer has gotten plenty of publicity, but I’ve yet to see any ads. It’s a quiet program, beyond the reproach of the advocates who are quick to tar any green effort by the chain as greenwashing.
It’s just a shame the chain doesn’t get its due for what it’s doing right.
Consider, for instance, what the chain is reportedly doing at 400 units in North Carolina and Tennessee. Local teachers will be working as crew members in the stores tonight, drawing soft drinks, cleaning tables, filling drive-thru orders and the like. In exchange, the restaurants will contribute a portion of sales from the three-hour stint to short-funded programs in the teachers’ schools.
Imagine the draw for a student of knowing his or her teacher will be waiting on them if they can talk the folks into a McDonald’s run. It sounds like a very powerful traffic booster.
But the benefits extend beyond the top and bottom lines. Educators readily acknowledge that the restaurant industry has a major image problem among teachers, parents and guidance counselors. By getting teachers to experience what it’s like to work in a restaurant, to see firsthand such intangible benefits as working as a team and learning responsibility, McDonald's will no doubt give the industry’s image a vigorous buff. And it won’t exactly hurt the business’s recruitment efforts to have kids see their teachers working in a unit.
That’s only one of the things the chain is quietly doing to foster a bond with the community. Consider, for instance, the recent effort of a single unit in West Miami. The store opened up its doors last week to anyone who wanted to learn about the operation. The franchisee focused on the charitable efforts of the restaurant and the chain, while also noting the options that McDonald’s touts as being more healthful.
According to a news report, the invitation drew about 50 people, including an 8th grade journalism class.
Then there’s McDonald’s green stealth move. Since the start of football season, the chain has been offering pro-football fans a free ticket on public transportation to and from their teams’ stadiums. In exchange for foregoing their cars, the game-goers also get coupons for free sandwiches.
The environmentally minded offer has gotten plenty of publicity, but I’ve yet to see any ads. It’s a quiet program, beyond the reproach of the advocates who are quick to tar any green effort by the chain as greenwashing.
It’s just a shame the chain doesn’t get its due for what it’s doing right.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Opening eyes to a greener reality
A new survey reveals that 80% of the public doesn’t know of a fast-food chain that’s trying to be green. That’s astounding, given how often I’m writing about the ecological efforts of McDonald’s, Starbucks, Taco Bell, Burger King, Carl’s Jr. and Dunkin’ Donuts, to name just a few of the sector’s green activists.
The findings by M/A/R/C Research point to a public relations disaster for the segment. Consider that the data, based on an online poll of some 7,000 consumers, also reveal that 62% of the public would be drawn to a quick-service place that was eco-minded, and that 21% would increase their visits if fast-food restaurants were green.
There can really be only two explanations. The obvious one is that the chains are doing a lousy job of letting the public know how they’re striving to be more ecologically responsible. Maybe they’re afraid of being accused of not doing enough, or of being slammed for “greenwashing,” a serious crime among the eco-minded. That community is sensitive to over-hyped or false claims of helping the environment.
But the other possibility is more problematic for the industry. What if the public is refusing to see what the chains are doing? If that sounds crazy, consider this excerpt from a Letter to the Editor that recently ran in the Santa Barbara Independent:
Like it or not, McDonald’s is taking substantive steps to be greener, from exploring alternative energy sources to testing ways an operation of its size could feasibly compost its food scraps.
And it’s just one of the fast-food concepts that are trying to act more responsibly. Undoubtedly, those steps are still small ones right now. They’re balanced against the impact on profits. And maybe there’s more that should be done. We can even concede that the impetus may be public pressure, from employees and eco-minded shareholders as much as patrons.
But there is a lot being done by the industry—right now, primarily by fast-food chains and independents. The trade has to focus on making the public see and appreciate that effort.
The findings by M/A/R/C Research point to a public relations disaster for the segment. Consider that the data, based on an online poll of some 7,000 consumers, also reveal that 62% of the public would be drawn to a quick-service place that was eco-minded, and that 21% would increase their visits if fast-food restaurants were green.
There can really be only two explanations. The obvious one is that the chains are doing a lousy job of letting the public know how they’re striving to be more ecologically responsible. Maybe they’re afraid of being accused of not doing enough, or of being slammed for “greenwashing,” a serious crime among the eco-minded. That community is sensitive to over-hyped or false claims of helping the environment.
But the other possibility is more problematic for the industry. What if the public is refusing to see what the chains are doing? If that sounds crazy, consider this excerpt from a Letter to the Editor that recently ran in the Santa Barbara Independent:
We are shocked and dismayed that a McDonald's restaurant on State Street has been certified by the Green Business Program of Santa Barbara County.
What's next, giving an award to Monsanto for putting up a single solar panel?
While we are sure that the local owner of this McDonald's franchise was sincere in trying to reduce his or her carbon footprint (and save a few dollars) by putting in waterless urinals, an Energy Star ice machine, and an upgraded irrigation system, it is a bad joke to "certify" this as a green business. It makes a mockery of genuine efforts toward true sustainability.
In our opinion, this award is one of the most egregious cases of greenwashing we have ever seen. — Larry Saltzman and Linda Buzzell, founders, Santa Barbara Organic Garden Club
Like it or not, McDonald’s is taking substantive steps to be greener, from exploring alternative energy sources to testing ways an operation of its size could feasibly compost its food scraps.
And it’s just one of the fast-food concepts that are trying to act more responsibly. Undoubtedly, those steps are still small ones right now. They’re balanced against the impact on profits. And maybe there’s more that should be done. We can even concede that the impetus may be public pressure, from employees and eco-minded shareholders as much as patrons.
But there is a lot being done by the industry—right now, primarily by fast-food chains and independents. The trade has to focus on making the public see and appreciate that effort.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Ted Kennedy & the restaurant industry
The restaurant industry lost one of its steadfast adversaries last week, the legendary Sen. Ted Kennedy. Even his bitterest opponents wouldn’t disrespect such a man by relishing his passing. But some in the business may secretly harbor relief, remembering Kennedy’s ardent fight for minimum wage hikes, worker benefits like parental leave, and any number of measures that foisted new costs and responsibilities on the trade.
It’s a shame their ideology blinds them from learning two key lessons from a 46-year public servant who undoubtedly ranks among the most committed ever to serve in the U.S. Senate.
At the very least, they should appreciate the fervor that drives someone who’s acting out of conviction to his ideals. Often, though less so today, restaurateurs oppose a law, regulation or social movement solely on the basis that it’ll cost them money, time or aggravation. They seem flummoxed that an undue burden on business isn’t enough of an objection to halt the other side.
The fallback is to equate the burden to lost jobs, as if anyone would really believe their motivation is keeping entry-level employment at the highest possible level.
Financial hardship is certainly a valid reason to oppose a measure. But some restaurateurs fail to appreciate that their opponents may, like Kennedy, be pushing a measure because they burn with the certainty it delivers a higher good. Arguing that something will cut profits just seems callused when the other side is insisting with conviction that a change in the status quo will help families, children, education, the underprivileged, social well-being, upward mobility, the hungry, or just leveling the playing field. Shortchanging investors or business owners is hardly the kryptonite counterargument against such righteous zeal.
It’s especially important for the trade to appreciate that ardor as values are reshaped by the recession. In a great social paradox, being harder pressed for money has prompted many people to downgrade its importance and elevate intangibles like connection, quality of life or having purpose. The industry can see it in dynamics like youngsters accepting lower wages for a position that resonates more with their principles. Is working for a greener company worth collecting 50 cents less an hour? How many of you would doubt it?
Similarly, survey after survey has shown that consumers are willing to pay more at a business that assumes a responsibility to the environment. Even with less to spend, they want to spend it with principle. Economics are trumped by values.
So what’s the industry to do to protect its business interests in a reasonable fashion?
As the posthumous tributes have all noted, Kennedy was the master of compromise and coalition-building. For too long, the industry’s lobbying position could be summed up as, “No.” No way, no how, no further discussion. Pitched opposition was the default setting.
Wouldn’t it be better to be a little Kennedy-esque? To work with adversaries and allies alike to find alternatives that protect business without drowning out other concerns, or refusing to shoulder some of the burden needed to benefit society as a whole?
The trade did it with the menu-disclosure bills that were introduced last year—accepting the concept of calorie counts being posted on chain menus, but tempering the requirements to ease the wallop.
Some industry old-timers must’ve clutched their chests when they saw the business calling for menu labeling, once the trade’s Freddie Krueger of causes.
But it will hopefully serve as a working model, in part because attitudes are changing within the industry’s workforce. An associate who works with tomorrow’s management says his young charges can’t understand why the business is always lining up on the wrong side of issues—matters like health, or worker benefits like sick leave, or, most pointedly of all, the environment. They’re often dismayed, if not embarrassed, by the trade’s political stance.
You can readily see it in the greening effort. Staffs are impatient with their employers’ commitment to sustainability. More expensive? So what? Many would no doubt favor government mandates to force the movement along.
The industry should do itself a favor and harness that zeal. With a little of what Kennedy practiced, it could use their ardor to hammer out a solution, instead of fostering a split between old and new attitudes.
It’s a shame their ideology blinds them from learning two key lessons from a 46-year public servant who undoubtedly ranks among the most committed ever to serve in the U.S. Senate.
At the very least, they should appreciate the fervor that drives someone who’s acting out of conviction to his ideals. Often, though less so today, restaurateurs oppose a law, regulation or social movement solely on the basis that it’ll cost them money, time or aggravation. They seem flummoxed that an undue burden on business isn’t enough of an objection to halt the other side.
The fallback is to equate the burden to lost jobs, as if anyone would really believe their motivation is keeping entry-level employment at the highest possible level.
Financial hardship is certainly a valid reason to oppose a measure. But some restaurateurs fail to appreciate that their opponents may, like Kennedy, be pushing a measure because they burn with the certainty it delivers a higher good. Arguing that something will cut profits just seems callused when the other side is insisting with conviction that a change in the status quo will help families, children, education, the underprivileged, social well-being, upward mobility, the hungry, or just leveling the playing field. Shortchanging investors or business owners is hardly the kryptonite counterargument against such righteous zeal.
It’s especially important for the trade to appreciate that ardor as values are reshaped by the recession. In a great social paradox, being harder pressed for money has prompted many people to downgrade its importance and elevate intangibles like connection, quality of life or having purpose. The industry can see it in dynamics like youngsters accepting lower wages for a position that resonates more with their principles. Is working for a greener company worth collecting 50 cents less an hour? How many of you would doubt it?
Similarly, survey after survey has shown that consumers are willing to pay more at a business that assumes a responsibility to the environment. Even with less to spend, they want to spend it with principle. Economics are trumped by values.
So what’s the industry to do to protect its business interests in a reasonable fashion?
As the posthumous tributes have all noted, Kennedy was the master of compromise and coalition-building. For too long, the industry’s lobbying position could be summed up as, “No.” No way, no how, no further discussion. Pitched opposition was the default setting.
Wouldn’t it be better to be a little Kennedy-esque? To work with adversaries and allies alike to find alternatives that protect business without drowning out other concerns, or refusing to shoulder some of the burden needed to benefit society as a whole?
The trade did it with the menu-disclosure bills that were introduced last year—accepting the concept of calorie counts being posted on chain menus, but tempering the requirements to ease the wallop.
Some industry old-timers must’ve clutched their chests when they saw the business calling for menu labeling, once the trade’s Freddie Krueger of causes.
But it will hopefully serve as a working model, in part because attitudes are changing within the industry’s workforce. An associate who works with tomorrow’s management says his young charges can’t understand why the business is always lining up on the wrong side of issues—matters like health, or worker benefits like sick leave, or, most pointedly of all, the environment. They’re often dismayed, if not embarrassed, by the trade’s political stance.
You can readily see it in the greening effort. Staffs are impatient with their employers’ commitment to sustainability. More expensive? So what? Many would no doubt favor government mandates to force the movement along.
The industry should do itself a favor and harness that zeal. With a little of what Kennedy practiced, it could use their ardor to hammer out a solution, instead of fostering a split between old and new attitudes.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
San Francisco requires food-scrap separation
Much of the East Coast seems to have missed this, but San Francisco broke new ground yesterday in forcing restaurants and other businesses to operate in a more environmentally responsible manner. Mayor Gavin Newsom, a former restaurateur himself, signed a bill that will require restaurants, all other businesses and even households to separate food scraps and other compostable materials from recyclables and trash. It's the first city in the nation to adopt such a provision.
Restaurants will also be required to retain a company to haul away the refuse, as residential properties are currently required to do.
Here's precisely what will be required of restaurants, from an online town hall guide:
Places that fail to heed the new law will be warned by their carters. If the non-compliance continues, the haulers are expected to alert authorities, who could levy fines of up to $1,000. The penalty is capped at $100 for "small contributors," or businesses that generate less than a cubic yard of compostable material per week.
The restaurant industry has shown considerable interest in composting, both to reduce its hauling fees and to be greener. One of the complications has been a fear about sanitation. Do you want an open bucket of food scraps festering in a kitchen all day, when the temperatures could climb to a desert's level?
But, if you've ever composted, you know the solution is just to make frequent runs to the containers outside. It'll mean a little more diligence, not necessarily a health hazard.
In any case, lots of areas will no doubt be following San Francisco's lead and weighing whether they, too, should foster composting by requiring the separation of food scraps.
Restaurants will also be required to retain a company to haul away the refuse, as residential properties are currently required to do.
Here's precisely what will be required of restaurants, from an online town hall guide:
Owners or managers of food vendors and special events are required to maintain appropriate, color-coded (blue for recyclables, green for compostables and black for trash), labeled containers in convenient locations, and educate tenants, employees and contractors, including janitors, on how to separate materials.
Food vendors that provide disposable foodware must have appropriate containers for recyclables, compostables and trash for use by customers and visitors, placed inside near a main exit.
The Department of the Environment conducts free workshops, and provides materials and other assistance and to help produce zero waste events.
Places that fail to heed the new law will be warned by their carters. If the non-compliance continues, the haulers are expected to alert authorities, who could levy fines of up to $1,000. The penalty is capped at $100 for "small contributors," or businesses that generate less than a cubic yard of compostable material per week.
The restaurant industry has shown considerable interest in composting, both to reduce its hauling fees and to be greener. One of the complications has been a fear about sanitation. Do you want an open bucket of food scraps festering in a kitchen all day, when the temperatures could climb to a desert's level?
But, if you've ever composted, you know the solution is just to make frequent runs to the containers outside. It'll mean a little more diligence, not necessarily a health hazard.
In any case, lots of areas will no doubt be following San Francisco's lead and weighing whether they, too, should foster composting by requiring the separation of food scraps.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The top surprises of NRA Show '09
That familiar foot pain is back, and I still haven’t shaken my persona non grata status at the Nathan’s booth (like there’s really a Chicago law on how many franks you can give away to one person). But there were some definite surprises to this year’s National Restaurant Show:
It was a high-commerce show. There’s no doubt that turnout was down considerably from prior years. But vendors say the restaurateurs on the show floor were there to do business. Ones who I knew cited lists of what they wanted to see, from dishes to desserts to new apple products. It seems the economic downturn filtered out the half-hearted shoppers who really came for the free pens and food giveaways, or to say hello to old friends. The ones who still came were there to buy, an assertion heard repeatedly.
Even advocates are airing second thoughts about always buying local. Heightened interest in buying seasonal produce or other types of supplies from local providers was plainly evident during educational presentations or even off-the-cuff conversations. But some converts voiced second thoughts. For one thing, they said, locally grown doesn’t always equate to better quality or flavor. Others noted that some jurisdictions are now requiring foodservice operators that do business with the government to buy equipment and supplies from concerns in the area. That can take quality considerations out of the process, and the price could be a wallop if there's insufficient competition to hold down the charges.
Green and grey can co-exist. Most of the educational sessions I’d selected to attend were focused on green matters, rousing fears of being surrounded by skateboarders in iPod buds who’d call me Gramps. Yet the sessions, which tended to draw well, were attended by the tattooed and un-pierced alike. Interest in sustainability may still be more common among younger dudes and dudettes, but the industry’s green movement is snagging interest from all age groups.
Remember swine flu? The big fear of a few weeks earlier seemed like a dim memory during the show. Sure, there were the 130 hand-sanitizer dispensers that Ecolab had installed for the event, and clearly they were getting a workout. But I had only one person who balked at shaking hands, and I didn’t see one mask. Nor was the matter a common topic of conversation. I attended one education session on H1N1, and it was sparsely attended.
Viral marketing has arrived for foodservice. One of the most-talked-about presentations during Convention Week was the explanation of how a supplier called BlendTec had created a global marketing campaign with a $50 budget. As executives explained to the Marketing Executives Group , whose conference leads into the NRA Show, the solution for the company was YouTube. It posted videos that showed a lab-coated representative using a BlendTec blender to grind up things like an iPhone. Before long, fans were contacting the firm with requests of what they wanted to see minced.
The gee-wiz aspect of the campaign was demonstrated at MEG by a BlendTec representative, who turned a garden-variety garden rake into sawdust with the blender he had on stage. As a gift, he was given a box of chattering teeth--which he then put into the blender.
I didn’t attend the MEG conference, which is off the record for reporters in any case. But I heard about it from a number of people who attended. Virally, you might say.
It was a high-commerce show. There’s no doubt that turnout was down considerably from prior years. But vendors say the restaurateurs on the show floor were there to do business. Ones who I knew cited lists of what they wanted to see, from dishes to desserts to new apple products. It seems the economic downturn filtered out the half-hearted shoppers who really came for the free pens and food giveaways, or to say hello to old friends. The ones who still came were there to buy, an assertion heard repeatedly.
Even advocates are airing second thoughts about always buying local. Heightened interest in buying seasonal produce or other types of supplies from local providers was plainly evident during educational presentations or even off-the-cuff conversations. But some converts voiced second thoughts. For one thing, they said, locally grown doesn’t always equate to better quality or flavor. Others noted that some jurisdictions are now requiring foodservice operators that do business with the government to buy equipment and supplies from concerns in the area. That can take quality considerations out of the process, and the price could be a wallop if there's insufficient competition to hold down the charges.
Green and grey can co-exist. Most of the educational sessions I’d selected to attend were focused on green matters, rousing fears of being surrounded by skateboarders in iPod buds who’d call me Gramps. Yet the sessions, which tended to draw well, were attended by the tattooed and un-pierced alike. Interest in sustainability may still be more common among younger dudes and dudettes, but the industry’s green movement is snagging interest from all age groups.
Remember swine flu? The big fear of a few weeks earlier seemed like a dim memory during the show. Sure, there were the 130 hand-sanitizer dispensers that Ecolab had installed for the event, and clearly they were getting a workout. But I had only one person who balked at shaking hands, and I didn’t see one mask. Nor was the matter a common topic of conversation. I attended one education session on H1N1, and it was sparsely attended.
Viral marketing has arrived for foodservice. One of the most-talked-about presentations during Convention Week was the explanation of how a supplier called BlendTec had created a global marketing campaign with a $50 budget. As executives explained to the Marketing Executives Group , whose conference leads into the NRA Show, the solution for the company was YouTube. It posted videos that showed a lab-coated representative using a BlendTec blender to grind up things like an iPhone. Before long, fans were contacting the firm with requests of what they wanted to see minced.
The gee-wiz aspect of the campaign was demonstrated at MEG by a BlendTec representative, who turned a garden-variety garden rake into sawdust with the blender he had on stage. As a gift, he was given a box of chattering teeth--which he then put into the blender.
I didn’t attend the MEG conference, which is off the record for reporters in any case. But I heard about it from a number of people who attended. Virally, you might say.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Goading green
There was a passing mention here, a quick aside there, an oh-by-the-way tangent to a speaker’s larger point. But the five or six references, coming on a single day of the restaurant show, suggest the industry may soon have to contend with a new dose of government agita, this time dealing with conservation.
At least two of the day’s presenters mentioned a growing interest among public officials in obliging restaurants to operate in a greener fashion. A representative of Energy Star, a federal resource for cutting energy consumption, advised restaurants to benchmark their demand on utilities in part to protect themselves from heightened government scrutiny. You want to be able to show what you’d done to conserve, just in case, she explained. But she didn’t specify why regulators or lawmakers might be gauging restaurants’ efforts to cut their power consumption, or what actions they may be contemplating.
A representative of IPC Subway, an independent purchasing cooperative for the chain, was far more explicit. Tina Fitzgerald, director of produce and social responsibility for IPC, cited interest by some nations, states and counties in outlawing certain types of containers or packaging materials, like plastic bags or plastifoam boxes. She noted that Canada is already levying a tax based on “how much packaging goes out the door,” a spur to cutting how many containers or wraps come in through the back.
Fitzgerald also recounted how Subway sent an energy-saving CFL bulb to every franchisee to encourage the replacement of less-efficient incandescent bulbs. She indicated that the franchisees have found religion, so to speak, and then commented that mandates might soon force the non-believers to make the changeover in any case.
I don’t think she meant the franchisor would levy that demand. The aside seemed to fit her point that governments are becoming more active in regulating green.
At least two of the day’s presenters mentioned a growing interest among public officials in obliging restaurants to operate in a greener fashion. A representative of Energy Star, a federal resource for cutting energy consumption, advised restaurants to benchmark their demand on utilities in part to protect themselves from heightened government scrutiny. You want to be able to show what you’d done to conserve, just in case, she explained. But she didn’t specify why regulators or lawmakers might be gauging restaurants’ efforts to cut their power consumption, or what actions they may be contemplating.
A representative of IPC Subway, an independent purchasing cooperative for the chain, was far more explicit. Tina Fitzgerald, director of produce and social responsibility for IPC, cited interest by some nations, states and counties in outlawing certain types of containers or packaging materials, like plastic bags or plastifoam boxes. She noted that Canada is already levying a tax based on “how much packaging goes out the door,” a spur to cutting how many containers or wraps come in through the back.
Fitzgerald also recounted how Subway sent an energy-saving CFL bulb to every franchisee to encourage the replacement of less-efficient incandescent bulbs. She indicated that the franchisees have found religion, so to speak, and then commented that mandates might soon force the non-believers to make the changeover in any case.
I don’t think she meant the franchisor would levy that demand. The aside seemed to fit her point that governments are becoming more active in regulating green.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Why no helping hand for restaurants?
I’m not sure what restaurants did to piss off government, but it had to be something awful to merit the treatment they’ve been getting. Anything less than keying an official car or hitting on a spouse just wouldn’t explain it.
The industry, though showing a few hopeful signs this week, has been walloped by the economy, just as the housing, auto and finance businesses have been clobbered. But those victims are being shored up with government dollars—bags and bags of it. And what’re restaurants getting? Burden after burden after burden.
Down in Alabama, eateries might soon have to rewrite their menus to indicate the source of any catfish they serve, and presumably they serve a lot of it (some locally farmed, an increasing amount purchased from Asia because it’s of cheaper and of lower quality; hence the legislation). In Washington, D.C., and New York City, the next big thing might be levying a fee on bags. New York restaurants already know for certain they’ll soon be required to erect wall posters that educate the staff about common allergies.
Restaurateurs in other areas are adjusting to bans on Styrofoam takeout containers, a requirement that’s increasingly being viewed as a green step all restaurants should take.
And, of course, municipalities, counties and states are continuing to eye menu-labeling provisions, even as the industry pushes for a single national mandate.
The industry is fighting most of the other measures with its usual pitched resistance. Actually, I think some of initiatives are true advances that at any other time should be readily accepted, like the allergy poster requirement, or even the bag fees. But right now? No way.
Lawmakers are being unfair in imposing those added responsibilities as the industry contends with dropping traffic and slipping check averages. Restaurateurs already have enough matters to address, especially as staff cutbacks forces them to assume nuts-and-bolts work. Maybe the industry can’t be helped with a few billion of the money that’s flowing to the finance business. But at least legislatures could agree to a moratorium on most new responsibilities until economic conditions improve.
Otherwise they may get their laws, but fewer businesses to which they’ll apply.
The industry, though showing a few hopeful signs this week, has been walloped by the economy, just as the housing, auto and finance businesses have been clobbered. But those victims are being shored up with government dollars—bags and bags of it. And what’re restaurants getting? Burden after burden after burden.
Down in Alabama, eateries might soon have to rewrite their menus to indicate the source of any catfish they serve, and presumably they serve a lot of it (some locally farmed, an increasing amount purchased from Asia because it’s of cheaper and of lower quality; hence the legislation). In Washington, D.C., and New York City, the next big thing might be levying a fee on bags. New York restaurants already know for certain they’ll soon be required to erect wall posters that educate the staff about common allergies.
Restaurateurs in other areas are adjusting to bans on Styrofoam takeout containers, a requirement that’s increasingly being viewed as a green step all restaurants should take.
And, of course, municipalities, counties and states are continuing to eye menu-labeling provisions, even as the industry pushes for a single national mandate.
The industry is fighting most of the other measures with its usual pitched resistance. Actually, I think some of initiatives are true advances that at any other time should be readily accepted, like the allergy poster requirement, or even the bag fees. But right now? No way.
Lawmakers are being unfair in imposing those added responsibilities as the industry contends with dropping traffic and slipping check averages. Restaurateurs already have enough matters to address, especially as staff cutbacks forces them to assume nuts-and-bolts work. Maybe the industry can’t be helped with a few billion of the money that’s flowing to the finance business. But at least legislatures could agree to a moratorium on most new responsibilities until economic conditions improve.
Otherwise they may get their laws, but fewer businesses to which they’ll apply.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Bag-fee proposals now extending to restaurants
Restaurants in the nation’s capital are contending with a proposal that might be the next type of legislation to spread from coast to coast, following in the wagon ruts of trans fat bans and menu-labeling bills. Indeed, it’s surprising the industry has been spared the fight this long.
A number of jurisdictions—including New York City, the Start Here for the trans fat and menu labeling movements—have already considered the imposition of a charge on disposable bags. But most of those initiatives had been limited to the plastic or paper sacks provided to patrons by groceries and drug stores, with gourmet takeout shops perhaps added here or there (as was the case with the measure floated in New York in November, though it was limited to plastic bags).
Now bag-fee proposals are cropping up again, most noticeably along the coasts, and some aren’t exempting restaurants this time. Among them is New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg dusted off his plan and re-proposed it in late January, this time with restaurants included. He presented it as a way of combating litter, but noted it would also raise much-needed funds for Gotham.
Washington, D.C., is looking squarely at restaurants with its proposal that consumers pay a nickel fee for every bag, paper or plastic, they’re issued with a purchase. The measure is intended to cut litter, both by discouraging the use of disposable bags and raising money that could be used for clean-up and awareness campaigns.
Curiously, reports theWashington Business Journal, some D.C. restaurants support the measure because of its environmental benefits. The paper quotes one restaurateur as saying that a nickel surcharge isn’t really going to change consumer behavior.
It’s not a view shared by local industry lobbyists. The Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington has argued that the industry is strained enough without the added burden of collecting a fee and potentially chasing away cost-conscious customers.
Proponents of bag fees point out that the adoption of cloth or other reusable bags would solve the problem. They note that reusables are commonplace in Europe, and that the trend is catching on in the States.
It looks as if we may soon learn how American consumers feel about it. The Washington measure is still being considered by the D.C. Council, with handicappers declining to say which way the rule-making body might lean.
The status of the New York proposal is unclear at this point. The mayor estimates that the measure would raise an additional $144 million for the city, at a time when it’s feeling the same financial pressures of every other jurisdictions. That alone is a tough argument to counter.
A number of jurisdictions—including New York City, the Start Here for the trans fat and menu labeling movements—have already considered the imposition of a charge on disposable bags. But most of those initiatives had been limited to the plastic or paper sacks provided to patrons by groceries and drug stores, with gourmet takeout shops perhaps added here or there (as was the case with the measure floated in New York in November, though it was limited to plastic bags).
Now bag-fee proposals are cropping up again, most noticeably along the coasts, and some aren’t exempting restaurants this time. Among them is New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg dusted off his plan and re-proposed it in late January, this time with restaurants included. He presented it as a way of combating litter, but noted it would also raise much-needed funds for Gotham.
Washington, D.C., is looking squarely at restaurants with its proposal that consumers pay a nickel fee for every bag, paper or plastic, they’re issued with a purchase. The measure is intended to cut litter, both by discouraging the use of disposable bags and raising money that could be used for clean-up and awareness campaigns.
Curiously, reports theWashington Business Journal, some D.C. restaurants support the measure because of its environmental benefits. The paper quotes one restaurateur as saying that a nickel surcharge isn’t really going to change consumer behavior.
It’s not a view shared by local industry lobbyists. The Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington has argued that the industry is strained enough without the added burden of collecting a fee and potentially chasing away cost-conscious customers.
Proponents of bag fees point out that the adoption of cloth or other reusable bags would solve the problem. They note that reusables are commonplace in Europe, and that the trend is catching on in the States.
It looks as if we may soon learn how American consumers feel about it. The Washington measure is still being considered by the D.C. Council, with handicappers declining to say which way the rule-making body might lean.
The status of the New York proposal is unclear at this point. The mayor estimates that the measure would raise an additional $144 million for the city, at a time when it’s feeling the same financial pressures of every other jurisdictions. That alone is a tough argument to counter.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Is CSR the industry's next big issue?
Welcome to the new frontier for the restaurant industry, and its big players in particular. Of course you’d never know that from the turnout of foodservice concerns at this first-of-a-kind meeting, a conference on corporate social responsibility. Representation from the trade amounts to two companies: McDonald’s and Sodexo, the giant contract catering concern. And Sodexho was thwarted from attending today’s event, where I’m writing this, by the snowstorm that hit New York City.
Full disclosure: I was only there because my wife works on conferences for the Financial Times, the event’s presenter. Indeed, I kept stumbling over the topic. Corporate what? Isn’t that the same as being green? And how much social investing is actually being done? It can’t be a big deal, right? And if it is such a major emerging trend, wouldn’t the restaurant industry be aware of it?
My ignorance was promptly corrected, and not for the first time.
Corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is already a familiar term in plenty of other businesses. Not so within foodservice, or at least not yet. Yum! Brands, the parent of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, generated headlines in the trade media when it issued a CSR report in December, detailing what it’s doing in areas ranging from sustainability to sourcing, transparency in governance, hiring practices, community involvement and fighting obesity.
As usual, McDonald’s is also taking a leadership position on the matter.
Once you get past a handful of forward-thinking concerns, there’s virtually no talk of CSR, just a discussion of two important components, sustainability and workforce diversity. That’s puzzling, given the industry’s pride in being part of the social fabric, a veritable cornerstone of the community and economy.
That inattention could be a problem. As speakers here at the conference repeatedly stressed, more and more investors are now evaluating CSR in deciding what companies get their money. A keener interest is also evident among consumers. Employees, too, especially the generations marching behind the Baby Boomers. Wal-Mart, for instance, now works with its employees to help them identify and pursue a personal sustainability program, a component of the retailing giant’s ambitious CSR effort, as a speaker explained from the podium.
Indeed, CSR seems to be of as much interest within the larger business community as sustainability currently is in foodservice. It’s only a matter of time until restaurant operators realize that CSR isn’t a hit TV series.
“It is not a genie that’s going back in the bottle. It’s part of the new world we’re facing,” said Tim Smith, a senior vice president of Walden Asset Management, a socially responsible investment firm that handles a $1.7 billion portfolio for institutions and wealthy individuals.
One speaker noted that New York City and Florida, among other jurisdictions, now have CSR questions on the forms all fund managers have to fill out when they hope to handle any of the government's institutional funds, like pensions. The forms ask about the managers' social-responsibility investment strategies--what criteria they use to pick the companies whose securities they're willing to buy. If a restaurant concern didn't meet those standards, it's out of consideration.
Because the topic encompasses so much, from sourcing to packaging to board composition, and preoccupies investors as well as staff and patrons, it promises to hit foodservice with a wallop. Part of the impact, I fear, will be sheer surprise.
Fortunately for the business, much of the content at the conference dealt with the fundamentals of CSR—sourcing with social responsibility in mind, what socially responsible investors look for, how CSR can be pushed forward, what coalitions should be formed, and what all stakeholders could do to promote social consciousness in business. Much of the content dealt with sustainability, an aspect familiar to restaurants.
But the conference left no doubt that more and more restaurant companies will be forced by the attention of Wall Street and Main Street to make CSR a part of their vocabularies.
“It not something that’s nice to have. It’s not a new philanthropy. It’s not something that falls by the wayside when times get tough,” remarked an executive of Merck & Co., the pharmaceutical giant. It’s a new business reality, she stressed.
Full disclosure: I was only there because my wife works on conferences for the Financial Times, the event’s presenter. Indeed, I kept stumbling over the topic. Corporate what? Isn’t that the same as being green? And how much social investing is actually being done? It can’t be a big deal, right? And if it is such a major emerging trend, wouldn’t the restaurant industry be aware of it?
My ignorance was promptly corrected, and not for the first time.
Corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is already a familiar term in plenty of other businesses. Not so within foodservice, or at least not yet. Yum! Brands, the parent of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, generated headlines in the trade media when it issued a CSR report in December, detailing what it’s doing in areas ranging from sustainability to sourcing, transparency in governance, hiring practices, community involvement and fighting obesity.
As usual, McDonald’s is also taking a leadership position on the matter.
Once you get past a handful of forward-thinking concerns, there’s virtually no talk of CSR, just a discussion of two important components, sustainability and workforce diversity. That’s puzzling, given the industry’s pride in being part of the social fabric, a veritable cornerstone of the community and economy.
That inattention could be a problem. As speakers here at the conference repeatedly stressed, more and more investors are now evaluating CSR in deciding what companies get their money. A keener interest is also evident among consumers. Employees, too, especially the generations marching behind the Baby Boomers. Wal-Mart, for instance, now works with its employees to help them identify and pursue a personal sustainability program, a component of the retailing giant’s ambitious CSR effort, as a speaker explained from the podium.
Indeed, CSR seems to be of as much interest within the larger business community as sustainability currently is in foodservice. It’s only a matter of time until restaurant operators realize that CSR isn’t a hit TV series.
“It is not a genie that’s going back in the bottle. It’s part of the new world we’re facing,” said Tim Smith, a senior vice president of Walden Asset Management, a socially responsible investment firm that handles a $1.7 billion portfolio for institutions and wealthy individuals.
One speaker noted that New York City and Florida, among other jurisdictions, now have CSR questions on the forms all fund managers have to fill out when they hope to handle any of the government's institutional funds, like pensions. The forms ask about the managers' social-responsibility investment strategies--what criteria they use to pick the companies whose securities they're willing to buy. If a restaurant concern didn't meet those standards, it's out of consideration.
Because the topic encompasses so much, from sourcing to packaging to board composition, and preoccupies investors as well as staff and patrons, it promises to hit foodservice with a wallop. Part of the impact, I fear, will be sheer surprise.
Fortunately for the business, much of the content at the conference dealt with the fundamentals of CSR—sourcing with social responsibility in mind, what socially responsible investors look for, how CSR can be pushed forward, what coalitions should be formed, and what all stakeholders could do to promote social consciousness in business. Much of the content dealt with sustainability, an aspect familiar to restaurants.
But the conference left no doubt that more and more restaurant companies will be forced by the attention of Wall Street and Main Street to make CSR a part of their vocabularies.
“It not something that’s nice to have. It’s not a new philanthropy. It’s not something that falls by the wayside when times get tough,” remarked an executive of Merck & Co., the pharmaceutical giant. It’s a new business reality, she stressed.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
California about to ban plastifoam?
California is "on the verge" of passing a statewide ban on Styrofoam, Michael Oshman, executive director of the Green Restaurant Association, told a thinly populated room of restaurateurs at the New York restaurant show.
Oshman also warned that legislation discouraging or banning the use of plastic bags is sweeping the nation.
Oshman was addressing why restaurateurs should consider making their operations and menus more environmentally friendly. One of the advantages of acting now, he stressed, was looking like a forward-thinker before green measures are mandated by law. "It's going to happen anyway. Why not look like a hero?" he said.
And rest assure, he addedr, green "legislation is going to shoot up even more than it has already."
Oshman noted that a number of municipalities in California have already banned plastifoam. They include several cities in the Bay Area. The next step would be rolling the ban across the state, and asserted the state government is already close to doing so.
Oshman also warned that legislation discouraging or banning the use of plastic bags is sweeping the nation.
Oshman was addressing why restaurateurs should consider making their operations and menus more environmentally friendly. One of the advantages of acting now, he stressed, was looking like a forward-thinker before green measures are mandated by law. "It's going to happen anyway. Why not look like a hero?" he said.
And rest assure, he addedr, green "legislation is going to shoot up even more than it has already."
Oshman noted that a number of municipalities in California have already banned plastifoam. They include several cities in the Bay Area. The next step would be rolling the ban across the state, and asserted the state government is already close to doing so.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
No showing of the green? Seriously??
Proponents of the green movement probably relished yesterday’s disclosure that Carl’s Jr. had opened its first eco-friendly restaurant, a prototype studded with such advances as a rain-capture system, a high-tech smoke eater, and even a perch for a local hawk. But they likely missed today’s more significant announcement, from 26-unit Granite City Food & Brewery.
The regional brewpub chain trumpeted the opening of its latest outlet with all the reserve of a parent whose second grader just made the honor roll. “Highly detailed” and “contemporary décor” that make the place veritably buzz! A “fun and family-friendly dining atmosphere,” apparently for those who’d rather not vibrate during dinner!! Set in Carmel, IN, “one of the top ten places to live in the Midwest,” with “excellent schools, safe neighborhoods, an award-winning public library and an expanded park system” !!!
The description went on and on—without a mention of a single green feature. No LED lights in the parking lot. No motion-sensor-based light switches in the bathroom. No high-efficiency equipment in the kitchen, or flooring recycled from waste materials. Heck, not even a low-flow pre-rinse valve at the dish station, which would’ve set the facility back about $80.
How can a chain open a restaurant today that doesn’t incorporate at least the most fundamental devices and processes for conserving energy and water and cutting waste?
I’m picking on Granite, but it’s no different than almost every other restaurant chain that recently announced the opening of a new branch, from Chick-fil-A to Max & Erma’s.
Perhaps those restaurants really have green touches. If so, and the operator or franchisor merely isn’t crowing about it in their announcements, a public relations boon is being squandered. If not, they’re ignoring the genetic engineering that’s underway in the industry. A green gene is fast becoming a part of restaurants’ DNA. To ignore that is to risk being a freak, and having to fix the problem down the road with a potentially costly rehab.
The regional brewpub chain trumpeted the opening of its latest outlet with all the reserve of a parent whose second grader just made the honor roll. “Highly detailed” and “contemporary décor” that make the place veritably buzz! A “fun and family-friendly dining atmosphere,” apparently for those who’d rather not vibrate during dinner!! Set in Carmel, IN, “one of the top ten places to live in the Midwest,” with “excellent schools, safe neighborhoods, an award-winning public library and an expanded park system” !!!
The description went on and on—without a mention of a single green feature. No LED lights in the parking lot. No motion-sensor-based light switches in the bathroom. No high-efficiency equipment in the kitchen, or flooring recycled from waste materials. Heck, not even a low-flow pre-rinse valve at the dish station, which would’ve set the facility back about $80.
How can a chain open a restaurant today that doesn’t incorporate at least the most fundamental devices and processes for conserving energy and water and cutting waste?
I’m picking on Granite, but it’s no different than almost every other restaurant chain that recently announced the opening of a new branch, from Chick-fil-A to Max & Erma’s.
Perhaps those restaurants really have green touches. If so, and the operator or franchisor merely isn’t crowing about it in their announcements, a public relations boon is being squandered. If not, they’re ignoring the genetic engineering that’s underway in the industry. A green gene is fast becoming a part of restaurants’ DNA. To ignore that is to risk being a freak, and having to fix the problem down the road with a potentially costly rehab.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Carl's readies a new green flagship
Carl's Jr. will open a new eco-friendly flagship unit in two weeks on the site of a former Carrows family restaurant, according to posts on Twitter, the social networking site.
One "tweeter" (a.k.a. a "tweetle"--this could get cutesy, folks) asked Carl's via the micro-blogging site about the store, which is in Carpinteria. It was apparently arresting enough visually to merit a query from a local observer, who said it snagged his attention on a drive-by ("Nice place!" Hey, you only get 140 characters for each post, so that's downright effusive by Twitter standards.)
The company acknowledged that the converted restaurant is a new standard-setter, since the unit is only a mile from the headquarters of Carl's and its parent, CKE Restaurants. It also described the unit as "environmentally friendly to boot." But no further details were disclosed.
That's a shame, because you have to wonder if Carl's is eyeing other shuttered family restaurants as well. Today The NPD Group reported that enough of tose restaurants were shuttered last year to shrink the number of outlets in the segment by 3%. Southern California, Carl's stronghold, was a core market for many of the brands.
One "tweeter" (a.k.a. a "tweetle"--this could get cutesy, folks) asked Carl's via the micro-blogging site about the store, which is in Carpinteria. It was apparently arresting enough visually to merit a query from a local observer, who said it snagged his attention on a drive-by ("Nice place!" Hey, you only get 140 characters for each post, so that's downright effusive by Twitter standards.)
The company acknowledged that the converted restaurant is a new standard-setter, since the unit is only a mile from the headquarters of Carl's and its parent, CKE Restaurants. It also described the unit as "environmentally friendly to boot." But no further details were disclosed.
That's a shame, because you have to wonder if Carl's is eyeing other shuttered family restaurants as well. Today The NPD Group reported that enough of tose restaurants were shuttered last year to shrink the number of outlets in the segment by 3%. Southern California, Carl's stronghold, was a core market for many of the brands.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Very naughty ones among the nice
Coal prices will likely spike tomorrow as the market reflects several notable additions to Santa’s Naughty list. As any flying reindeer would tell you, the coal penalty is likely to be doubled because these infractions involve restaurants, and He Who Makes the List, a.k.a. the Chimney Clogger, is clearly a fan. And who wouldn’t be outraged by activities like these?
THE BIG CHECK SCAM: Businesses in Canada are being warned about a con that grifters tried to pull on a Winnipeg pizzeria, with similar stings apparently attempted in Toronto. According to the press coverage, the louts in Winnipeg almost succeeded. They contacted Gondola Pizza and said they needed $4,400 worth of pizza for a multi-day meeting of students. Then, two days before the deliveries were scheduled to start, the “customer” called back and said only half the original order would be required because of cancellations. Would the restaurant mind refunding half the payment ASAP?
Of course, the $4,400 check was no good. The crooks were betting that they could get the $2,200 refund before the place heard from its bank that the bigger check was bogus. It's another indication that restaurant scams are as common as snowflakes this holiday season.
Santa’s sentence: At least a ton of anthracite.
A THUMB IN WASHINGTON RESTAURATEURS' EYES: Operators in Snohomish County, Wash., caught a slush ball in sensitive parts when they recently opened their annual bills from the country health department. According to HeraldNet, a local news website, the department had raised the fee to $700, or double the charge for 2007. Places that didn’t remit payment within three weeks would pay double the charge, according to the news report.
Clearly someone forgot to inform the country health department that restaurants are fighting for their survival in the current economic environment. How can they absorb a hit like that? And, according to the coverage, it came as a complete surprise.
Santa’s sentence: The bituminous output of western Pennsylvania.
WISHFUL GREEN THINKING: News broke this morning of another ecologically minded initiative from Chipotle Mexican Grill, the burrito chain with a reputation of being far greener than the industry norm. This time around, according to the reports, the concept was switching to “sustainable” cutlery, or disposables that bio-degrade, starting with a restaurant in Millbrae, Calif. The only problem: It wasn’t true.
A supplier issued the press release without Chipotle’s involvement, approval or concurrence with the assertions made, according to the restaurant chain. It released a statement several hours later refuting the supplier’s announcement, explaining that it does indeed use compostable knives, forks and spoons at a Millbrae restaurant. But, it said, those eco-friendly disposables have to be used there because of a local ordinance. The chain stressed that it had no intention of switching to the degradable utensils at the other 799 restaurants in the system.
No doubt the home office was a little touchy because investors have been warily watching the one-time Wall Street sweetheart. Like every operator, it’s under intense demand to keep costs low. And bio-degradable disposables can cost anywhere from 10 to 40% more than the conventional type, according to suppliers.
Santa’s sentence: Three turns of a windmill blade. (Hey, the supplier is a green company. It’s probably allergic to coal.)
THE BIG CHECK SCAM: Businesses in Canada are being warned about a con that grifters tried to pull on a Winnipeg pizzeria, with similar stings apparently attempted in Toronto. According to the press coverage, the louts in Winnipeg almost succeeded. They contacted Gondola Pizza and said they needed $4,400 worth of pizza for a multi-day meeting of students. Then, two days before the deliveries were scheduled to start, the “customer” called back and said only half the original order would be required because of cancellations. Would the restaurant mind refunding half the payment ASAP?
Of course, the $4,400 check was no good. The crooks were betting that they could get the $2,200 refund before the place heard from its bank that the bigger check was bogus. It's another indication that restaurant scams are as common as snowflakes this holiday season.
Santa’s sentence: At least a ton of anthracite.
A THUMB IN WASHINGTON RESTAURATEURS' EYES: Operators in Snohomish County, Wash., caught a slush ball in sensitive parts when they recently opened their annual bills from the country health department. According to HeraldNet, a local news website, the department had raised the fee to $700, or double the charge for 2007. Places that didn’t remit payment within three weeks would pay double the charge, according to the news report.
Clearly someone forgot to inform the country health department that restaurants are fighting for their survival in the current economic environment. How can they absorb a hit like that? And, according to the coverage, it came as a complete surprise.
Santa’s sentence: The bituminous output of western Pennsylvania.
WISHFUL GREEN THINKING: News broke this morning of another ecologically minded initiative from Chipotle Mexican Grill, the burrito chain with a reputation of being far greener than the industry norm. This time around, according to the reports, the concept was switching to “sustainable” cutlery, or disposables that bio-degrade, starting with a restaurant in Millbrae, Calif. The only problem: It wasn’t true.
A supplier issued the press release without Chipotle’s involvement, approval or concurrence with the assertions made, according to the restaurant chain. It released a statement several hours later refuting the supplier’s announcement, explaining that it does indeed use compostable knives, forks and spoons at a Millbrae restaurant. But, it said, those eco-friendly disposables have to be used there because of a local ordinance. The chain stressed that it had no intention of switching to the degradable utensils at the other 799 restaurants in the system.
No doubt the home office was a little touchy because investors have been warily watching the one-time Wall Street sweetheart. Like every operator, it’s under intense demand to keep costs low. And bio-degradable disposables can cost anywhere from 10 to 40% more than the conventional type, according to suppliers.
Santa’s sentence: Three turns of a windmill blade. (Hey, the supplier is a green company. It’s probably allergic to coal.)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Drinking for a healthier planet. That's my story.
I’m pleased to report you can now drink and save the planet, too. As a restaurateur revealed during the National Restaurant Association’s webinar this afternoon on ways of being more ecologically minded in a bleeding-out economy, there are such things as “green drinks.”
“We devised a green drink menu,” explained Laura Wood Hber of Croc’s 19th Street Bistro in Virginia Beach. “We have organic beer, organic wine, organic vodka, organic nectors. We have a Sugar Plum Martini where we use organic sugar on the rim.”
Pardon me as I wipe a tear from my eye.
Even more arresting—and that's not easy for me to say—was the common sense demonstrated by Hber and her fellow presenters in the green steps they’ve taken. Right now there’s a feeling, reality-based or not, that restaurants’ green efforts may be sidelined by the industry’s financial straits. How can you save the environment when you’re focused full-bore on saving the business?
And does a thin-walleted public even care anymore? According to epicurious.com’s forecast of next year’s major food trends, “‘value’ is the new “sustainable.’”
That notion was swatted down during the webinar, “Making 2009 a ‘Greener’ Year for Your Restaurant.” The title may have used "greener" in the environmental sense, but it could just as readily been referring to dollars. The speakers stressed that you don’t have to loom your own uniforms or adopt a polar bear to demonstrate an environmental consciousness. A few simple changes, they reported, will please both green-minded customers and a dollar-fixated business manager.
Chris Dahlander, proprietor of the two-unit Snappy Salads fast-casual chain, said his operation has cut its water bill by $1,600 a year by installing low-flow sprayer nozzles in the kitchen. He estimated the cost of the nozzles at under $80, and noted that his utility provided them to Snappy Salads free of charge as part of its conservation program.
He’s also cutting down on paper—and how much he spends on it—by refusing to use a fax machine. “I say, ‘Well, I have e-mail,. Why not just e-mail it to me?’”
Jeffrey Clark, a consultant with ICF International who spoke on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program, noted that keying restroom lights to motion sensors costs less than $85. Yet by ensuring the lights stay off until someone enters, the gizmos cut a room’s electricity use by 25% to 75%. Similarly, fluorescent bulbs, despite their higher costs, use only about 25% as much electricity as incandescents do, and they last appreciably longer.
Dahlander cited such other economical green moves as using vegetable scraps to make soup stocks instead of throwing them out, and cleaning glass surfaces with just vinegar and water.
But not all of the green measures he’s taken are as economical as standard practices. He noted that Snappy Salads uses cups and other disposables that are made from corn starch, which biodegrades. But they also erode his bottom line a bit.
“The corn-based cups cost about 16 cents each,” he said. “So we decided to charge people for water.”
Dahlander explained that he put up a sign in each of his restaurants, alerting patrons that a glass of water would now cost them 25 cents, and explaining why. The message explains that “we’re not going to make any money on it,” and that the charge merely defrays the cost of the cup.
“I’ve had three people say to me, ‘Hey, you’re crazy for doing this.’ They paid it. They just said I was crazy.’”
He noted that each of his fast-casual outlets gross about $1 million a year in sales. Crazy, indeed.
You can catch a replay by looking here on the NRA's environmental site, Conserve.
“We devised a green drink menu,” explained Laura Wood Hber of Croc’s 19th Street Bistro in Virginia Beach. “We have organic beer, organic wine, organic vodka, organic nectors. We have a Sugar Plum Martini where we use organic sugar on the rim.”
Pardon me as I wipe a tear from my eye.
Even more arresting—and that's not easy for me to say—was the common sense demonstrated by Hber and her fellow presenters in the green steps they’ve taken. Right now there’s a feeling, reality-based or not, that restaurants’ green efforts may be sidelined by the industry’s financial straits. How can you save the environment when you’re focused full-bore on saving the business?
And does a thin-walleted public even care anymore? According to epicurious.com’s forecast of next year’s major food trends, “‘value’ is the new “sustainable.’”
That notion was swatted down during the webinar, “Making 2009 a ‘Greener’ Year for Your Restaurant.” The title may have used "greener" in the environmental sense, but it could just as readily been referring to dollars. The speakers stressed that you don’t have to loom your own uniforms or adopt a polar bear to demonstrate an environmental consciousness. A few simple changes, they reported, will please both green-minded customers and a dollar-fixated business manager.
Chris Dahlander, proprietor of the two-unit Snappy Salads fast-casual chain, said his operation has cut its water bill by $1,600 a year by installing low-flow sprayer nozzles in the kitchen. He estimated the cost of the nozzles at under $80, and noted that his utility provided them to Snappy Salads free of charge as part of its conservation program.
He’s also cutting down on paper—and how much he spends on it—by refusing to use a fax machine. “I say, ‘Well, I have e-mail,. Why not just e-mail it to me?’”
Jeffrey Clark, a consultant with ICF International who spoke on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program, noted that keying restroom lights to motion sensors costs less than $85. Yet by ensuring the lights stay off until someone enters, the gizmos cut a room’s electricity use by 25% to 75%. Similarly, fluorescent bulbs, despite their higher costs, use only about 25% as much electricity as incandescents do, and they last appreciably longer.
Dahlander cited such other economical green moves as using vegetable scraps to make soup stocks instead of throwing them out, and cleaning glass surfaces with just vinegar and water.
But not all of the green measures he’s taken are as economical as standard practices. He noted that Snappy Salads uses cups and other disposables that are made from corn starch, which biodegrades. But they also erode his bottom line a bit.
“The corn-based cups cost about 16 cents each,” he said. “So we decided to charge people for water.”
Dahlander explained that he put up a sign in each of his restaurants, alerting patrons that a glass of water would now cost them 25 cents, and explaining why. The message explains that “we’re not going to make any money on it,” and that the charge merely defrays the cost of the cup.
“I’ve had three people say to me, ‘Hey, you’re crazy for doing this.’ They paid it. They just said I was crazy.’”
He noted that each of his fast-casual outlets gross about $1 million a year in sales. Crazy, indeed.
You can catch a replay by looking here on the NRA's environmental site, Conserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
