Flinders University
OP-7: Dining Service Procurement

7.1 Percentage of food and beverage spend that meets sustainability criteria

An institution earns 6 points when the weighted cost of purchased food and beverage products that meet the sustainability criteria outlined in Table I is at least equal to the total food and beverage spend. Incremental points are available and earned as outlined in the Technical Manual.

Food and beverage sustainability criteria

Measurement

Report the most recent data available from within the previous three years. An institution may track purchases over a full one-year time period or use a representative sample that includes data from an academic term or similar period. When using samples, an institution must accommodate seasonal and other variations in food and beverage availability and purchasing, for example, by including an equal number of months within and outside the local growing season.

At a minimum, the analysis must include food and beverage expenditures by the institution’s self-operated dining services or the institution’s contracted food service management company (e.g., Aramark, Bon Appétit Management Company, Chartwells, or Sodexo). Outlets that are unique to the institution or its food service management company (e.g., retail concepts developed and managed by the institution or contractor) should be included. Franchises (e.g., regional or global brands), independent operators, convenience stores, vending services, concessions, and de minimus purchases by other entities may be excluded. 

If a product category or type is excluded from the analysis (e.g., due to data tracking limitations), the exclusion must be disclosed in the methodology documentation field provided.  

Products sourced from a campus farm or garden, but not purchased, may be accounted for based on estimated market value.

For transparency, an inventory of qualifying purchases must be provided. The inventory may be in any format as long as sufficient information is provided to justify each product’s inclusion, including its name/description and the sustainability criterion met (i.e., a specific certification/ecolabel or a note that the product was sourced from a qualifying campus farm/garden or small producer). A template is available. For plant-based foods, an itemized inventory is not required (see guidance below), however sufficient information must be provided about the broad categories used in the analysis to allow an independent reviewer to understand how the percentage of spend on plant-based foods was determined. This information may be included in the template or provided in the relevant narrative documentation field.

Sustainably or ethically produced products

An institution may report on purchases that meet the Real Food Standards (US) or another set of standards that adhere to the Anchors in Action Aligned Framework in lieu of the sustainable/ethical criteria provided. For example, an institution may report its verified Real Food percentage as the “percentage of food and beverage spend on products that are sustainably or ethically produced” and upload its Real Food Calculator results as evidence.

A purchase that meets more than one sustainable/ethical criterion may not be double-counted. For example, purchased coffee that is both certified Organic and Fairtrade certified may only be counted in the sustainable/ethical spend once. A purchase that is both sustainably/ethically produced and a plant-based food, however, should be included in both percentage figures. 

To claim points for a recommended fish or seafood product that is not third party certified, an institution must have sufficient information on the specific species and where and how it was caught or farmed to be able to affirm its recommended status.  

Products that are sustainably or ethically produced and products that are conventionally produced must be reported separately to the extent possible. In cases where a single-ingredient product is gathered from multiple farms or boats and aggregated prior to distribution (e.g., fluid milk), a purchase may qualify as sustainably or ethically produced if the distributor is able to verify that more than 50 percent of the product (by volume) meets the criteria.

A product from a secondary processor (e.g., an artisan, baker, cheese/yogurt maker, or coffee roaster) qualifies as sustainably or ethically produced if the predominant/defining raw ingredient (or more than 50 percent of ingredients, by weight, salt and water excluded) is sustainably or ethically produced. Examples of predominant/defining raw ingredients include the flour in bread, the milk in cheese, and the tomatoes in tomato sauce.

Plant-based foods

To quantify the spend on plant-based foods, it is recommended that an institution only count as plant-based those broad categories of food purchases for which all items clearly meet the criteria (e.g., fresh produce; whole grains; canned, jarred, and frozen fruits, vegetables, and legumes; and plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy). A more refined approach, e.g., based on a line item inventory, is welcome, but is not required and may not result in a significantly higher score. 

7.2  Percentage of dining service spend with social impact suppliers

An institution earns 2 points when at least 10 percent of the spend managed by its dining services is with social impact suppliers. Partial points are available. An institution for which at least 5 percent, but less than 10 percent, of its dining service spend is with social impact suppliers earns 1 point.

Measurement

Report on the most recent annual (fiscal or calendar year) data available from within the previous three years. An institution may track suppliers over a full one-year time period or use a representative sample that includes data from an academic term or similar period. When using samples, an institution must accommodate seasonal and other variations in food and beverage availability and purchasing, for example, by including an equal number of months within and outside the local growing season.

At a minimum, the analysis must include the food and beverage spend managed by the institution’s self-operated dining services or its contracted food service management company (e.g., Aramark, Bon Appétit Management Company, Chartwells, or Sodexo), but may also include expenditures on other goods and services (e.g., supplies, equipment, and cleaning services) at the institution’s discretion. Expenditures on items other than goods and services are excluded (e.g., salaries, wages, benefits, employee expenses, insurance, interest, taxes, utilities, and building leases). Outlets that are unique to the institution or its contracted food service management company (e.g., retail concepts developed and managed by the institution or contractor) should be included. Procurement managed by other entities (e.g., franchises) may be excluded.

The analysis may be limited to the dining program’s Tier One suppliers (e.g., its food distributors and other direct suppliers), focus on its Tier Two suppliers (e.g., the producers that supply its food distributors and other direct suppliers), or include multiple tiers in the supply chain as long as double-counting is avoided.

Double-counting must also be avoided when identifying social impact suppliers. For example, the spend with a supplier that is both employee owned and a Certified B Corporation may only be counted once.

Applicable to institutions with dining services operated by the institution or a contracted food service management company.