Published in

MDPI, Sustainability, 19(13), p. 10928, 2021

DOI: 10.3390/su131910928

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Green Restaurants ASSessment (GRASS): A Tool for Evaluation and Classification of Restaurants Considering Sustainability Indicators

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Green restaurants are based on the implementation of environmental management and are closely related to quality management through a set of instruments and programs. This study aimed to build an instrument classification adopting cutoff points and classify restaurants using traffic light scores from the sustainability assessment checklist validated in Brazilian Portuguese for restaurants. The questionnaire classification validation was performed using a cross-sectional study conducted in a convenience sample of 97 restaurants. The instrument has 76 items, and all items were based on yes/no/not applicable answers, comparing sustainability activities. The instrument score was obtained by assigning one point to each “yes” item. Each section received a score, and a total score was provided to the restaurant from the three sections’ sum. International instruments used in the checklist development stage were checked to assist in the cutoff points determination. Therefore, the score for restaurants with low adherence to sustainable practices or red seal ranges from 0 to 40%, restaurants with medium adherence to sustainable practices or yellow seal from 40% > to <75%, and restaurants with good adherence to sustainable practices or green seal ≥75%. The instrument is divided into three sections (1. water, energy, and gas supply; 2. menu and food waste; 3. waste reduction, construction materials, chemicals, employees, and social sustainability). Percentages must be reached in all sections. Researchers did not find any green or sustainable restaurants through the checklist application in the tested sample, and 47.4% of the restaurants had the yellow seal (presenting sustainable activities) with higher scores for Section 2 regarding menu and food waste. The items less scored were the company has goals for the rational use of water, the company achieves zero greenhouse gas emissions with proven partnerships, the company has a documented program to reduce carbon emissions, and towels or uniforms are made of organic or sustainable material. Thus, it demonstrates the attention points and improvements in the analyzed restaurants. We hope that the construction and validation of the checklist and its score’s determination have contributed to broadening the discussions on sustainability in food services and serve as a starting point for future research. Strategies like these are fundamental to improve the understanding of the subject and to expand the knowledge of nutritionists who deal directly with this economic sector.