What does environmentally sensitive professional foodservice design look like? The fact is each of us will be thinking of it in a different way depending on perspective on global warming or maybe waste pollution or even energy security; all are equally valid. Also are we talking about the designer and the design process or is it the equipment and materials specified or the facility construction process, or maybe the operation of the kitchen.
It’s asking a lot of the foodservice designer to consider the environmental issues in their designs without defining the results being sought. It’s easy to say the objective is a “Green” project but even that can be confused by the various definitions in each country or state such as BREEAM (UK) and GB/T50378-2019 (China)and IgCC (US) and with LEED becoming the most recognized “reward” for a green building certification.
There are little wonder consultants and designers are confused, and the confusion becomes magnified when you discover that there are studies that show that there are LEED certified buildings that have been shown to perform worse in some respects than similar non-LEED buildings. The reasons for this can be explained by the fact that LEED certification is not results driven, it is more about box ticking to obtain benefits.
This is where the FCSI professional foodservice designer distinguishes themselves. We are results and performance driven. And certainly, when asked by the project team to identify features that will add some extra points to the LEED score, we are always find it possible to contribute with systems and technologies that not only score and result in a long-term environmental benefit. However, there will have been many occasions when the professional kitchen designer has suggested a powerful environmental contribution to the actual ongoing environmental performance of the facilities, only to be told that there is no LEED score for that.
The ISO14000 series of standards is designed to promote effective environmental management and to provide tools for a strategic approach to environmental issues and minimize how the operations and processes negatively affect the environment (air, water, and land). What is really important for the designer’s client is their ability to run their business in such a way as to meet ISO14001 standards, even if they do not actually sign up to the standard. The advantage for a designer of considering applying an overriding ISO14000 approach to the design is that it is universal rather than nationally prescriptive. (Although ISO14001 does include for compliance with local standards).
It is because this ISO Standard involves a systems approach that encourages continuous improvement, meaning the design of the facility needs to enable the operation or processes to get better and better from an environmental perspective: ( eg. the flexibility to gradually reduce energy consumption).
How might that work in practice
For the experienced practitioner it’s mostly common sense and what we do as consultants and advisors for our clients: enabling the operation to be managed efficiently, cost effectively and where appropriate profitably. For most, that means enabling productivity and minimizing waste.
Productivity can be an environmental issue through minimising inputs in a way that maximizes outputs. The most obvious is the amount of energy required to run the operation. In this context ISO14000 requires that the operation gets better and better at saving energy with the efficiencies reducing the CO2 involved in the production, and therefore cost; which translates into improved productivity and profitability.
Environmental strategies to consider
There are many other beneficial “Green” environmental strategies that are in our power to enable through the designs we produce and the advice we deliver; some more obvious that others and are worth further consideration:
Space: In some places and cities, the cost of the space used is more valuable and greater than the cost of the facilities installed on it. More than that, the more space that is used, while not actually necessary for the efficient delivery of the output, costs more in energy, labour, materials and services to operate than necessary. All of these will have an impact on the environment as well as productivity.
Planning for the most efficient application of the space required will therefore contribute to minimising the environmental impact of the facility.
People: People; and that is the staff working in the facility, have a direct and indirect impact on the environment. This means that the efficiency of the operation will have a direct impact on the environment as well as productivity. More staff require more space and more ventilation load and services etc. from uniforms to toilets.
The application of effective automation not only has an impact on productivity but also the environmental footprint of the operation. The lifecycle environmental (energy) and benefit over a given, say 10-year, period should be added into the labor productivity and risk calculation required to justify the investment in the technology.
Energy: Possibly the most obvious potential for environmental savings but one that is often not fully engaged through even currently available technologies and systems. Every small system and equipment choice and selection will have an impact on the environment.
A recent study concluded that the kitchen exhaust system is one of the energy intensive systems in a professional kitchen, and can be made significantly more energy efficient through the application of technology such as Demand-Controlled Kitchen Ventilation.
Selecting equipment based on the efficiency of the ratio of the energy input to the productive output rather than just assuming that more input equals faster or better production output is not valid. The movement to electric from gas for cooking is a case at point. On a purely comparative efficiency percentage, electric energy should always be specified for efficiency as well as environmental reasons.
Insulation is critical for energy efficiency, whether it be in dishwashers, refrigeration or food holding equipment, efficient insulation will be effective in minimizing energy and thus environmental costs. Insulation used should be evaluated on a fit for purpose as well as on optimal performance rather than what an equipment manufacturer says they use, because it will always have an environmental impact.
Waste: The designer has the power to influence the impact of waste generated by the business on the environment, not just food waste and how it is managed but also in spatial design and equipment selection. The design of the facility can make it easier for the operator and their staff to effectively manage the inevitable waste that is generated through the business of the delivery of meals and therefore the environmental cost.
Selection of equipment on the basis of durability and serviceability is the first step but also will be consideration of what happens to redundancy; will the manufacturer take it back. Whilst all too often professional kitchen equipment is used until it falls apart, designing for flexibility in replacing equipment reduces the actual cost of labour and energy required in doing so, and therefore the environmental impact, however small.
We have covered wasted space and energy, but packaging waste will be an ongoing issue if it’s not actively managed either through the project process or the day to day operation. Project waste such as the packaging that comes with new equipment does not have to be disposable waste. Equipment and machinery can be handled and protected when being delivering to site, and once on site by using re-usable covering as do furniture removalists.
Waste, other than food waste, generated by the kitchen operation can be managed by eliminating the need for the use internally of single use plastics, and by developing a circular economy design approach to all kitchen processes.
Chemical waste contamination is a significant issue for the environment as well as being a food safety and occupational health issue. The minimizing or even elimination of these issues through designing out the potential, or better still designing for the introduction of replacement systems that eliminate the environmental risk must be the designer’s ambition. An example is designing for the application of on-site generated Electrolyzed Water cleaning and sanitizing solution; safe to people and harmless to the environment, that replaces dangerous concentrated chemicals that are finding their way into the lived environment.
Cost benefits
It is interesting to note that in nearly all the suggested potential environmental strategies that the designer has in their toolbox, will also have a cost benefit and positive payback of the investment in the technology or process required to implement them. LEED fails to consider the results; in fact, it is not concerned with the actual results or business consequences of the environmental strategies that it mandates. Designers should certainly contribute to the rating of the many and various environmental ‘scoring’ systems, but should then apply their own common sense environmental solutions applicable to each client’s circumstances.
Most of these environmental strategies suggested will equally apply to the design consultant’s own office. It is important that the consulting practice believe in the strategies they propose to their clients and are therefore able to show by example.
Tim Smallwood FFCSI
