Tackling the climate impact of restaurants, cafés and pubs in Brighton and Hove: findings of a research project
Tackling the climate impact of restaurants, cafés and pubs in Brighton and Hove: findings of a research project
Ben Simanowitz
According to Trip Advisor, Brighton and Hove has nearly 1200 restaurants, pubs and cafés. The sector has been identified as one of the three main pillars of the City’s food economy, alongside food purchased by consumers in shops and supermarkets, and food purchased for use by the public sector.
This note is based on initial research carried out with restaurants in Brighton and Hove. The research illustrates the need to understand what “net zero” signifies, what reducing food system emissions entails, and how this differs from other notions of sustainability. None of these concepts is fully understood. The research suggests that uncertainty among stakeholders is a significant barrier to emission reduction.
Background
Brighton and Hove (B&H) has an enviable record on environmental issues. In 2020, the Sustainable Food Places programme, led by the Soil Association, Food Matters and Sustain, awarded the City its prestigious Gold Sustainable Food Place Award, in recognition of pioneering work around good food. This reflected, in particular, the outstanding leadership of the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership.
The term ‘sustainability’ has many definitions and interpretations, however. This award seems to have been made primarily for B&H’s progress in the areas of its social, health and economic targets (Figure1). These are all laudable goals of course, but ‘climate-related’ sustainability seems to have been under-represented.
In fact, Brighton and Hove’s carbon footprint from food is not exceptional. Figure 2 shows the performance of B&H against the English average, with per capita consumption emissions from food and drink emissions (coloured in purple), only 3% below the national average.
A new food strategy for B&H is being formulated at present. Can there be better representation of the need to reduce emissions?
Figure 1
Aims of the B&H Food Strategy Action Plan (2018-2023)
Source: Brighton and Hove Food Partnership
Figure 2
Overall consumption carbon emissions per capita in B&H (this area) versus the average in England
Source: Place-Based Carbon Calculator
Method
The research sought to explore any confusion among stakeholders around sustainability issues. It was partly framed by James Joughin’s Briefing Paper for Climate:Change on the challenge of reducing emissions within B&H’s food system. The Briefing Paper identifies three ways forward: changing diet, reducing waste, and making commercial procurement more carbon efficient. It raises the question: how easily can the various retail and wholesale outlets engage with these paths of action?
The research involved a literature review of the academic sources. Three public sector documents were central: the council’s Carbon-Neutral Programme, the Food Partnership’s Gold Food Place Award bid, and, crucially, the Food Partnership 2018-2023 Food Strategy Action Plan. Noting that the five-year period for that action plan expired last year, and that a new Food Strategy is being developed, it may be possible that some of the findings from this paper can be incorporated.
The literature review suggested a gap in the knowledge around B&H’s private sector stakeholders and their various approaches to food emission reductions. To address this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of seven businesses representing varying priorities, approaches and challenges. While this sample represents a diversity of perspectives within B&H’s food sector, its size was limited because of constraints in time and resources.
Participant A – A sustainability-focused cooperative and well-established organic food retailer. In the heart of Brighton, this business has a substantial turnover, attracting middle-to-high income individuals willing to pay a premium, prioritising ethical consumption over price sensitivity. Customers are generally health-conscious and environmentally aware, likely to be receptive to minimising environmental impacts.
Participant B – A North Laines restaurant. With modern British dishes, this is a trendy, independently owned restaurant, catering for vegan and vegetarian diets and focusing on local sourcing. It is a small-to-medium size business, performing well in a prime location, attracting middle and higher income customers, some receptive to environmental initiatives.
Participant C – A Mediterranean restaurant. This is a small, family-run restaurant inspired by Greek culinary traditions, attracting a mix of middle-income and budget-conscious customers with a lower turnover. Environmental consciousness is not a primary motivator, yet economic incentives minimise waste.
Participant D – A restaurant in the Open Market. A small, independent establishment, this attracts middle and low income customers. The owner was environmentally conscious, implementing waste and emission reduction strategies. Customers appear moderately interested in sustainable practices.
Participant E – A high-end chain café. This is a popular cafe/ bakery with high-quality, traditional food. It is part of a national chain, with a medium-sized business in Brighton attracting a middle-to-upper income demographic willing to pay premium prices. Many are supportive of environmentally sustainable practices, yet employees indicated greenwashing may be present.
Participant F – A steakhouse. This is a small-to-medium sized restaurant operating an authentic South American cuisine, attracting a middle-to-upper income bracket, many willing to spend more on quality. It cannot be said to be sustainably oriented, with the primary dish (steak) causing the highest rate of emissions among common dishes.
Participant G – A vegan restaurant. A popular, plant-based, modern restaurant, this is located in a busy area of Brighton, performing very well with a loyal, middle-income customer base who are health and environmentally conscious. The ethos of the business aligns with customer support of environmental issues, with initiatives ranging from the vegan menu to compostable packaging.
Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed a number of recurring themes among participants, as well as distinct and different levels of engagement, actions and perspectives in relation to the ‘sustainability’ agenda. This allowed a classification ranging from ‘sustainability focused’ participants to those demonstrating lower interest and engagement.
Findings
Barriers to Reducing B&H’s Food System Emissions
Across all the participants, four major barriers to change emerged.
Diversity in B&H’s restaurant sector
Brighton and Hove’s food sector reflects its diverse population, encompassing varied culinary traditions, demographics, and views on sustainability. The diverse cultural landscape complicates sustainable transitions, particularly as meat-based dishes are a prominent element of so many diets. Despite this, most restaurants showed a notable interest in sustainable options, reflected perhaps in high rates of veganism on offer. In many respects, this diversity functions as both an asset and a barrier: it allows for the exchange of valuable practices, but also indicates that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is not viable.
Knowledge Barriers
In B&H, the range of perspectives and approaches to sustainable food systems is as varied as its culinary traditions, each founded on differing and sometimes opposing beliefs. As a result, reducing emissions has been impeded, with uninformed or misinformed stakeholders unable to take effective action. Even authorities and “trusted sources” are dispersing mixed messages regarding best practices and priorities, amplifying confusion among businesses and the wider public. The knowledge barriers facing businesses can be divided into two categories.
(i) Lack of awareness. Despite B&H’s strong green reputation, approximately half of the participants showed limited understanding of environmental sustainability, with little interest in making changes. Many were unaware of the severity of the climate crisis and the food sector’s role in it. A Mediterranean restaurant owner even remarked that they ‘can’t really change anything’, revealing a common misconception that stifles the potential for meaningful action.
(ii) Misinformation. Even among those eager to adopt sustainable practices, misinformation is common. For example, the Open Market restaurant, committed to sustainability and implementing several effective initiatives (such as promoting plant-based alternatives), asserted that ‘vegetables pollute similar amounts to meat’, a claim that contradicts established research. This misunderstanding stemmed from the prevalent misbelief among participants, that local sourcing significantly reduces emissions, when in fact, the impact of consumption and production choices far outweighs transportation emissions.
One vegan restaurant, while generally well-informed, also fell victim to greenwashing as a result of misinformation. It had a tree-planting policy for every meal sold, but stopped when ‘the cost of planting a tree went from 10p to £1.10’. While tree planting projects offer a positive, tangible image, the reality is that effective carbon offsetting requires long-term maintenance and management to ensure trees survive and thrive beyond the planting stage, and this certainly costs more than 10p per tree. The restaurant’s decision to end the scheme rather than seek improved offsetting suggests a prioritisation of image over real environmental benefits.
These examples illustrate the broader issues: the need for accurate, well-informed decision-making, and a citywide effort to combat misinformation on sustainability.
The Constituents of Demand
As expected, perceptions of consumer demand significantly influenced participants’ supply choices. B&H’s diverse customer base includes both environmentally conscious individuals and those with limited awareness or interest in low-emission options. One steakhouse remarked, ‘beef is our speciality … it is what attracts most of our customers’. Despite beef’s high carbon emissions, strong demand drives private sector supply choices, which concurrently shape consumer preferences.
While public and private sector actions can encourage sustainable practices, they still rely heavily on cooperation with households. For instance, subsidies may promote sustainable food production, but their success ultimately hinges on genuine consumer demand.
Affordability
While some participants express a willingness to invest in low-emission food alternatives, perceived affordability of these options significantly affects how much transition businesses are willing to prioritise. This perception ties back to misinformation, as misinformed beliefs about costs can unnecessarily hinder progress.
One vegan restaurant noted that the cost-of-living crisis forced it to revert to less sustainable options due to reduced consumer spending. Some participants noted that sustainably-minded customers are less price-sensitive and willing to pay more for sustainable alternatives, presenting an opportunity for increased revenues. A sustainability-focused retailer admitted, ‘the stuff we sell is expensive’, yet customers are willing to pay a premium. Similarly, a high-end cafe chain remarked ‘there is money in vegan and vegetarian options’, leveraging demand for ‘sustainability’ to boost profits. However, by loading higher profit margins on these sustainable options, these businesses may be limiting the accessibility of low-emission options to low-income households, reducing their potential for broader impact.
During the cost-of-living crisis, independent businesses have struggled to compete against large-scale chains and multinational corporations that hold market advantages. Similarly, households with financial constraints are drawn to the significantly lower prices and convenience of supermarkets, so further disadvantaging smaller, local businesses. These financial pressures limit the capacity of many to source produce from outside of the dominant supply chains. The existing concentration of power in the few dominant supermarket and restaurant chains restricts consumer choice and perpetuates reliance on corporate giants, which can choose whether (or not) to increase the sustainability of their products.
Recommendations
As we have seen, ‘environmental sustainability’ itself is a contested term and, in the food sector, a tangle of diverging narratives, competing agendas, and even misinformation have created a degree of confusion.
A new food strategy for Brighton and Hove is in preparation. Working groups have been established to cover food and sustainability, the restaurant sector and procurement, among other subjects. This is encouraging and the strategy document is expected to go to the Council's Cabinet and the Health and Wellbeing Board for endorsement early next year.
Observers will be hoping that the new strategy will clarify some of the issues raised in this piece, to ensure Brighton and Hove keeps its place as a leader in food system reform and emission reductions.
As a first step, critical self-reflection is fundamental, recognising some of the key factors leading to existing underachievement. There is clearly a need to understand what ‘net zero signifies, what reducing food system emissions entails, and how this differs from other notions of sustainability. This disparity not only limits action but creates confusion about the most effective strategies to reduce emissions. An effective, citywide effort to tackle food system emissions requires alignment among key stakeholder groups.
On the basis of the research, some other possible next steps could be:
(i) Develop a unified, clear vision across B&H, with an actionable plan for businesses, residents, and the public sector to reduce food system emissions. This would benefit from the following:
Determine who are the key stakeholders and which ones can be followed as pioneers of emission reductions;
Develop more engagement with the private sector and increase the range of stakeholders;
Try to further develop relationships with contacts in the sector;
Identify the key interest groups and where tensions may lie;
Form a Working Group of informed interests in B&H to deliver a unified plan on reducing food system emissions;
Learn from national and international best practice.
(ii) Embrace self-criticism to enable progress; given B&H's record, with its Gold Sustainable Food award and its own ambitions, it is lagging behind in food system emission reductions, being just 3% below the national average.
(iii) Deliver awareness and educational campaigns. Despite the city's sustainable image, many private sector stakeholders (cafés, restaurants, retailers) remain misinformed or uninformed regarding environmental sustainability in the food sector. The council and involved groups need to be producing information and disseminating it regularly.
(iv) Acknowledge the diversity of sustainability perspectives in the city and raise awareness of the importance of emission reduction and how this may be achieved.
(v) Recognise the financial barriers to emission reductions, especially amid the cost-of-living-crisis and the growing dominance of multinational agri-food companies.
(vi) Embrace the complex nature of policy-making in this area, and accept that perspectives are varied. This should not be seen as an excuse to avoid tackling the need for food system emission reductions or the core ways this can be achieved, rather it should encourage a diverse and inclusive approach and strategy.
__________
Ben Simanowitz is a graduate of the University of Sussex
Perspective pieces are the responsibility of the authors, and do not commit Climate:Change in any way. Guest posts are published to explore issues or stimulate debate. Comments are welcome.