Development and Validation of a Tool for Assessing Sustainable Social Practices in Food Services

Abstract

Background: Food services have a high potential to promote the social dimension of sustainability. However, there are no specific instruments for implementing and evaluating socially sustainable practices in these establishments. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate the content of a list to assess sustainable social practices in food services. Methods: The pre-list of items was developed based on scientific articles about social sustainability published in the last 20 years and Brazilian legislations related to the theme. The content validity was assessed by ten nutritionists, in two phases, using the Delphi technique. The content validity index, Kappa statistic, and content validity ratio were calculated. Results: The list that was developed consisted of 130 items, which were organized into five axes: “organizational and managerial environment” (13 items), “community” (10 items), “employees” (62 items), “consumer” (33 items), and “suppliers” (12 items). Most items in the instrument (54.7%) were optional for the food services, and 45.3% were Brazilian legal obligations. After the second phase, sub-axes axes, axes, and the global instruments showed “excellent” content validity with an item content validity index ≥ of 0.8 (at minimum, 0.920) and Kappa > 0.74 (from 0.927 to 1). The content validity ratios of the items, sub-axes, and axes vary between 0 and 0.070. The instrument was considered easy to complete and useful for evaluating socially sustainable practices adopted in food services by 95.5% of the specialists. Conclusions: The instrument that was developed had its content validated and thus can help the managers and technicians responsible for the unit with social sustainability measures, thus ensuring the socially sustainable production of meals.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is defined as an ambitious political ideal related to the ability to maintain or increase the level of economic, environmental, and social development across generations [1]. Although the balance between the three sustainability dimensions is important for their promotion, the social dimension is still very rarely discussed in the literature, especially when compared to the environmental dimension [2].

The social dimension of sustainability can be described as the management of the positive and negative impacts of processes, systems, activities, and organizations on local communities through the mandatory or optional adoption of actions [3,4]. In this way, it includes the search for improving the quality of life, human rights, and democracy, being that the establishment must strategically articulate economic performance with ethical and moral aspects [5,6]. It also includes “social responsibility”, which corresponds to a form of management that provides for the well-being of society, promoted exclusively through practices carried out optionally by establishments [3].

Organizations such as food services have been increasingly challenged to incorporate sustainability practices into their strategies, demanding commitments and contributions from the entire organization [7]. Thus, establishments must pay due attention to their social responsibilities as a requirement to remain in the competitive, modern, and always up-to-date global management environment [8,9]. Due to this important challenge, many establishments have started to incorporate social sustainability into policy, business making, and people-management planning [3,10,11].

Food services aim to prepare, display, and sell meals for consumption on-site or off-site and are increasingly concerned about sustainability [12]. During all stages of this process, some actions performed in food services can cause impacts related to sustainability [13]. Among these impacts are some related to the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [14], such as food security and sustainable agriculture, good health and well-being, gender equality, decent employment, communities, and responsible consumption and production.

Despite the relevance of social sustainability and the fact that there is a great concern on the part of food services regarding innovations in management, the sustainable social actions performed in these establishments are still little known [4,15]. The low prevalence of information and discussions on social sustainability in food services occurs due to the unavailability of specific instruments to measure them in these establishments and the lack of studies to develop these instruments [4].

Currently, there is a diversity of exclusive and validated instruments for analyzing the dimension of environmental sustainability in food services [12,16]. However, the same is not true for validated instruments with social sustainability indicators to assess food services. Exclusive instruments that allow for the evaluation of the implementation of social sustainability in establishments are found in the literature [17,18]. These instruments investigate basic and generic items related to social sustainability, thus enabling their application in establishments in different segments—not specifically in food services. However, due to their generalist nature, these instruments do not include extremely relevant and basic aspects related to the objectives and process of producing meals in food services, such as the nutritional and hygienic quality of meals and the promotion of health through food. Thus, the available instruments cannot effectively measure sustainable actions practiced in these services [4].

Recently, a systematic review about sustainability indicators implemented in the production of meals in food services identified only 27 studies published until 2019 that included some indicators of social sustainability [4]. None of the works used exclusive instruments on social sustainability, as the social indicators were part of instruments that cover other dimensions [4]. It is known that sustainable practices need to contemplate a significant number of practices and the three dimensions to be complete [4]. However, although instruments for sustainability that contemplate the three dimensions of sustainability are extremely relevant for allowing a comprehensive analysis of food services, these instruments often have a very restricted number of items in each dimension, especially in the social dimension, which can make the analysis superficial.

In this context, developing and validating a broad checklist with social sustainability indicators applicable to food services is urgently needed. Sustainability indicators are required for the establishment to understand the sustainable parameters within which they must operate and for decision-making consistent with sustainable requirements [19]. The availability of instruments with this profile can contribute to scientific progress on the subject, enable managers to identify the practices adopted in each establishment, and help them to establish goals and strategies that allow for a socially sustainable meal production process. Furthermore, social sustainability is still an innovation in food services, and increasing its promotion by using the instrument developed could contribute to attracting customers, increasing employee satisfaction and productivity, and impacting the performance of companies, including their finances [4,9].

The present study aimed to develop and validate a list to assess sustainable social practices in food services.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theory of Change

The theory of change is a tool that makes it possible to describe the need you are trying to meet, the changes you want to make, and what you intend to accomplish [20]. It explicitly explains the logic of how an intervention is expected to produce results. In this process, based on known needs (inputs), activities are carried out to generate goods and services (outputs). The outputs can bring about changes related to the beneficiaries of the product, producing direct short-term results and, subsequently, long-term results [20,21]. The theory of change of this study is presented in Figure 1.

Based on this theory, the present work consisted of a cross-sectional observational study consisting of two stages: preparation of the list to assess social sustainability in food services and validation of the prepared list.

2.2. Preparation of the List

The first stage consisted of bibliographic research on indicators to analyze social sustainability in general establishments and food services. The scientific databases used to carry out the bibliographic research were Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science, covering publications from the last 20 years, i.e., from 2002 to 2022. Several search criteria were established by using the descriptors written in Portuguese and English: sustainable social practices OR social sustainability OR social responsibility AND food services AND questionnaire OR list OR tool OR indicators OR instrument.

In addition, websites, Brazilian and international legislation, reports, and other documents that covered themes related to social sustainability were searched by using the Google platform. From the complete reading of the scientific articles and documents obtained, socially sustainable practices that could be implemented in food services were identified, including those related to human nutrition and the meal-production process.

The identified practices in scientific articles and reports were pre-evaluated by two researchers specialized in the field of food services, regarding their potential to be forever integrated into food services in the commercial and institutional segments. These practices were further complemented by socially sustainable practices compatible with current legislation, food services resources, and working dynamics.

Practices preselected in scientific articles and those complemented by researchers were grouped into five thematic axes related to the organizational and managerial environment, community, employees, consumers, and suppliers. The pre-list was structured with affirmations of socially sustainable practices, classified as mandatory or optional compliance in these establishments. Those practices that were contained in Brazilian legislation that should be complied with by food services in this country were classified as mandatory.

2.3. Validation of the List

The Delphi method was used to validate the content of the list, with two validation phases carried out by the experts. This method is used in content-validation processes by building a consensus of opinions among experts, seeking to evaluate the problem or proposed intervention in successive phases [22,23].

There is no consensus regarding the experts’ number for validation using the Delphi analysis. At a minimum, three experts are recommended to determine the content validity [24]. Despite this, 10 experts were included in this study, which is compatible with other studies that performed this type of analysis [16]. It is emphasized that an expert number greater than 10 in this process reduces the chances of consensus [24].

Twenty-one nutritionists of both genders were preselected based on their curriculum and invited via email to fill in a detailed form containing personal information and information about their performance in food services. Based on the analysis of this information, nutritionists with at least five years of experience as technical managers responsible for food services were then invited by email to participate in the first phase of instrument validation.

In the first validation phase, the experts evaluated the content (semantic clarity and ease of interpretation) of each item and the relevance of the item being kept in the instrument. For the evaluation of the content of the items, the following 5-point Likert scale was used: (5) very clear, (4) clear, (3) neither clear nor unclear, (2) unclear, and (1) very unclear. For the analysis of the relevancy, a 5-point Likert scale was used, and the responses were 1 = not relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = neither relevant nor irrelevant 4 = quite relevant, and 5 = very relevant. Ratings of 3 and 4 were considered content valid or relevant [25]. Additionally, in the validation questionnaire, a field was added for specialists to record comments and suggestions for socially sustainable practices that could be included or excluded from the instrument.

Ratings of 1 and 2 were considered content invalid or irrelevant [25]. After consolidating the results of the first validation phase, the items categorized by the experts with ratings of 1 and 2 were duly adjusted according to the opinions and suggestions presented. Following modifications, the instrument was again presented to the experts for a second validation phase to reassess the content and relevance of each item. At the end of the second phase, the specialists performed a global assessment of the instrument regarding the comprehensibility of the items, the ease of filling in the questionnaire, and the usefulness of the prepared evaluation list. For this, the following 5-point Likert scale was used: (5) I totally agree, (4) I agree, (3) I neither agree nor disagree, (2) I disagree, and (1) I strongly disagree.

2.4. Data and Statistical Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data collected were tabulated by using Microsoft Excel 2022. Frequencies and percentages were used as descriptive statistics for quantitative variables about the expert profile and characteristics of the list of items to assess sustainable social practices in food services. Qualitative data related to the experts’ observations on each item were grouped by items and considered by the researchers for reviewing the items.

The agreement between the experts regarding the content of the items was evaluated by calculating the content validity index for each item (i-CVI), using the following equation:

$$\mathrm{i}\text{-}\mathrm{CVI}=\left[\mathrm{Na}+\mathrm{Ns}\right]÷\mathrm{N}$$

where Na = the number of responses of “I agree” for the item, Ns = the number of responses of “I strongly agree” for the item, and N = the number of experts in the panel.

From the i-CVI, the CVI for each sub-axis (Sub-CVI), axis (Axis-CVI), and global (Global-CVI) was calculated. A CVI for each item, sub-axis, axis, or global of at least 0.8% was considered for reflecting content validity [24].

The Kappa index was used in a complementary way to the CVI to assess consensus agreement between raters and ensure that agreement between experts is beyond chance. To calculate the Kappa index, the probability of chance agreement for each item (i-Pc) was estimated by using the following equation:

$$\mathrm{i}\text{-}\mathrm{Pc}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{N}!}{\mathrm{A}!\left(\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{A}\right)!}\right]\times {0.5}^{\mathrm{N}}$$

where N = the number of experts in the panel, and A = the number of experts who agree that the item “I totally agree” and “I agree” regarding the item’s relevance. Next, the Kappa index for each item (i-Kappa) was calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{i}\text{-}\mathrm{Kappa}=\frac{\mathrm{i}\text{-}\mathrm{CVI}-\mathrm{i}\text{-Pc}}{1-\mathrm{i}\text{-Pc}}$$

From the i-Kappa, the Kappa for each sub-axis (Sub-Kappa), axis (Axis-Kappa), and global (Global-Kappa) was calculated. Kappa values above 0.74, between 0.6 and 0.74, and those between 0.4 and 0.59 were considered excellent, good, and fair, respectively [26].

The agreement between the experts regarding the relevance of the item was evaluated to calculate the content validity ratio for each item (i-CVR), according to the Lawshe test, using the following equation:

$$\mathrm{i}\text{-}\mathrm{CVR}=\frac{\mathrm{Ne}-\frac{\mathrm{N}}{2}}{\mathrm{N}}$$

where Ne = the number of experts in the panel who “totally agree” and “agree” regarding the relevance of the item, and N is the total number of experts. The numeric value of CVR ranges from −1 to 1 [27].

From the i-CVR of each item, the CVR was calculated for each sub-axis (Sub-CVR), axis (Axis-CVR), and global (Global-CVR).

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 23 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Expert Profile

Of the total number of invited experts (n = 21), 10 completed the two phases of instrument validation. This panel was composed of professionals with 7 to 26 years of experience in the area of collective food, most of whom (90.9%) were female. At the time of data collection, 63.6% of nutritionists worked in food service, holding the positions of production/quality managers (27.3%), supervisors (18.2%), consultants (9.1%), or technical managers (9.1%).

3.2. Validation of the Instrument

The Sub-CVI and Axis-CVI were from 0.751 to 0.912 in the first validation phase. In the second phase, sub-axes, axes, and the global instrument showed “excellent” content, with a content validity index ≥ of 0.8 (at minimum, 0.920) and κ > 0.74 (from 0.927 to 1) (

Table 1. Content validity index (CVI), Kappa, and content validity ratio (CVR) in the second phase of the sub-axes, axes, and global of the list to assess sustainable social practices in food services.

Axes and Sub-Axes	CVI (Sub-Axes, Axes, and Global)	Kappa (Sub-Axes, Axes, and Global)	CVR (Sub-Axes, Axes, and Global)
Axis 1—The organizational and managerial environment of the food service	0.992	0.992	0.008
Axis 2—Employer	0.992	0.992	0.008
Selection and professional development	1.000	1.000	0.000
Workday	0.980	0.982	0.020
Human and labor rights	1.000	1.000	0.000
Diversity and equity	1.000	1.000	0.000
Worker health and safety	1.000	1.000	0.000
Work conditions	1.000	1.000	0.000
Compensation and benefits	0.988	0.989	0.012
Quality of life	0.967	0.969	0.033
Axis 3—Consumer	0.983	0.984	0.017
Health promotion	0.991	0.992	0.009
Promoting conscious consumption	0.986	0.987	0.014
Relationship with the consumer	0.971	0.974	0.029
Axis 4—Supplier	0.979	0.980	0.021
Supplier selection	1.000	1.000	0.000
Supplier development	0.957	0.961	0.043
Axis 5—Community	0.960	0.936	0.070
Commitment to community development	0.920	0.927	0.080
Management of social actions	1.000	0.945	0.060
Global	0.981	0.977	0.025

).

The CVR for the items reflected the experts’ assessment, classifying them as relevant. The i-CVR (data not presented), sub-CVR, and axis-CVR vary between 0 and 0.070, indicating that half or more experts classify the presence of these items in the instrument as essential.

After the second phase, most experts agreed that the items that make up the instrument were easy to understand (91.1%), the instrument was easy to fill (91.1%) and the instrument can help evaluate the good social practices in food services (100%).

3.3. Instrument Structure

After the first validation phase, 28 items were changed regarding words or expressions, since the way a question is designed has a direct influence on the answers given to that question and affects the general quality of the survey data. From the first validation phase, 26 items were added to the list, most of them related to “consumers”.

The final instrument consisted of 130 items organized into 5 axes (organizational and managerial environment, employees, consumers, suppliers, and community) and 15 sub-axes. The response options of items were “always/never” or “always/often/occasionally/ rarely/never” (

Table 2. Characteristics of the list of items to assess sustainable social practices in food services.

Axes and Sub-Axes	Number of Items	% Mandatory Shares in Brazil	% Optional Shares
Axis 1—Organizational and managerial environment	13	46% (n = 6)	54% (n = 7)
Axis 2—Employer	62	59.7% (n = 37)	40.0% (n = 25)
Selection and professional development	6	83.4% (n = 5)	16.6% (n = 1)
Workday	5	60% (n = 3)	40% (n = 2)
Human and labor rights	5	60% (n = 3)	40% (n = 2)
Diversity and equity	3	100% (n = 3)	0
Worker health and safety	17	94% (n = 16)	6% (n = 1)
Work conditions	8	87.5% (n = 7)	12.5% (n = 1)
Compensation and benefits	15	0	100% (n = 15)
Quality of life	3	0	100% (n = 3)
Axis 3—Consumer	33	39% (n = 13)	61% (n = 20)
Health promotion	20	50% (n = 10)	50% (n = 10)
Promoting conscious consumption	6	0	100% (n = 6)
Relationship with the consumer	7	42.9% (n = 3)	57.1% (n = 4)
Axis 4—Supplier	12	25% (n = 3)	75% (n = 9)
Supplier selection	5	40% (n = 2)	60% (n = 3)
Supplier development	7	14.3 (n = 1)	85.7 (n = 6)
Axis 5—Community	10	0	100% (n = 10)
Commitment to community development	5	0	100% (n = 5)
Social action management	5	0	100% (n = 5)
Global	130	45.3% (n = 59)	54.7% (n = 71)

and

Table 3. List to assess socially sustainable practices in food services ^a,b.

Code		Axes/Sub-Axes and Items	Frequency
Axis 1—Organizational and Managerial Environment of the Food Service
1	F	The mission, vision, and values are defined.	A				N
2	F	The mission, vision, and values are known to employees.	A				N
3	F	Sustainability is made explicit in the mission or vision or values.	A				N
4	F	The company has minimum guidelines for the promotion of corporate social responsibility.	A				N
5	F	The management sets an example regarding ethical practices within the workplace.	A	F	O	R	N
6	F	Ethical and socially responsible behavior of employees is required.	A	F	O	R	N
7	F	The ethical and socially responsible behavior of employees is valued.	A	F	O	R	N
8	O	Its third parties are required to provide proof of employee registration and/or employment contract following the legislation.	A	F	O	R	N
9	O	There is an internal accident prevention commission.	A				N
10	O	There is a prior conciliation commission, with representatives of employees and employers, with the task of trying to reconcile individual conflicts at work.	A				N
11	O	There is some other internal committee with the participation of employees.	A				N
12	O	There are channels of communication with the unions.	A				N
13	O	Employees, suppliers, and customers’ personal data and private information are protected.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Axis 1
Axis 2—Employees
Sub-Axis 2.1—Selection and professional development
14	F	The selection of employees is carried out considering criteria drawn up based on the function they will perform.	A	F	O	R	N
15	O	Employees are trained in the appropriate techniques and postures for work activities.	A	F	O	R	N
16	O	Employees receive basic training before carrying out new operations.	A	F	O	R	N
17	O	All food handlers are demonstrably submitted to a training course in Good Practices.	A				N
18	O	Employees receive specific training for the exercise of the function performed.	A	F	O	R	N
19	O	A continuing education program is carried out aiming at the improvement of employees in the functions performed.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.1
Sub-Axis 2.2—Workday
20	F	Planning is carried out to avoid hiring temporary employees.	A	F	O	R	N
21	F	Is there a plan to avoid overtime?	A	F	O	R	N
22	O	Employees’ working hours and duration are respected.	A	F	O	R	N
23	O	Employee overtime is recorded and compensated or paid.	A	F	O	R	N
24	O	Weekly rest is respected.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.2
Sub-Axis 2.3—Human and labor rights
25	F	The potential risks and impacts they may have on the employee’s health, nutrition, well-being, and quality of life are known.	A	F	O	R	N
26	F	There are channels (e.g., suggestion boxes, applications, and intranet, among others) for reporting disrespect for human or labor rights and for improving working conditions.	A				N
27	O	Actions to promote, prevent, or correct possible disrespect for the human rights of employees are carried out.	A	F	O	R	N
28	O	Annual paid vacations are respected.	A	F	O	R	N
29	O	The terms of maternity and paternity leave are respected.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.3
Sub-Axis 2.4—Diversity and Equity
30	O	Actions for hiring people with disabilities are carried out.	A	F	O	R	N
31	O	Actions are taken against discriminatory practices based on sex, origin, race, color, marital status, family situation, disability, professional rehabilitation, and age.	A	F	O	R	N
32	O	Employees can join the category union without restrictions.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.4
Sub-Axis 2.5—Worker health and safety
33	F	Health and safety awareness campaigns and/or campaigns aimed at the well-being of employees are carried out.	A	F	O	R	N
34	O	There is a certificate of approval of premises issued by the Ministry of Labor or a declaration of the premises of the new establishment issued by the food service.	A				N
35	O	The environmental risk prevention program exists and is monitored.	A	F	O	R	N
36	O	The occupational health and medical control program exists and is monitored.	A	F	O	R	N
37	O	There is an action plan for emergencies related to health and safety risks at work involving flammable products, injuries, or accidents with sharp equipment and utensils.	A				N
38	O	Inspections and verifications are carried out in the work environment to prevent and identify possible risks for accidents or injuries to the employee.	A	F	O	R	N
		Safety of the work environment and workers is guaranteed through the following:
39	O	Periodic inspection of equipment	A				N
40	O	Frequent preventive maintenance of equipment	A				N
41	O	Frequent corrective maintenance of equipment	A				N
42	O	Installation of collective protection equipment	A				N
43	O	Appropriate cleaning of equipment	A				N
44	O	Personal protective equipment that has an approval certificate is provided.	A	F	O	R	N
45	O	The delivery of personal protective equipment is recorded in individual employee files.	A	F	O	R	N
46	O	Employer and employee responsibilities for personal protective equipment are established.	A				N
47	O	Accidents, unsafe acts, and conditions are recorded and investigated.	A	F	O	R	N
48	O	Occupational health certificates are kept up to date and complete.	A	F	O	R	N
49	O	Accident certificates and/or accident reports are kept up to date and complete.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.5
Sub-Axis 2.6—Working conditions
50	F	There is an improvement suggestion system for the work performed by employees.	A				N
51	O	The physical space of the food service is adapted according to the characteristics of the employees, when necessary (e.g., toilet for PW).	A	F	O	R	N
52	O	The size of the building and installations is compatible with the operations carried out.	A	F	O	R	N
53	O	The lighting of the work environment provides adequate visualization for the activities.	A	F	O	R	N
54	O	The ventilation and exhaust system maintain a healthy working environment.	A	F	O	R	N
55	O	Exclusive washbasins for hand hygiene in the food handling area are present in sufficient quantity.	A				N
56	O	The washbasins for hand hygiene in the handling area have liquid soap, antiseptic products, and a hygienic and safe system for drying hands.	A	F	O	R	N
57	O	Sanitary facilities and/or changing rooms have products for employee hygiene.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.6
Sub-Axis 2.7—Remuneration and benefits
		In addition to the mandatory benefits (transport and meal vouchers), employees receive benefits such as the following:
58	F	Life insurance.	A	F	O	R	N
59	F	Health insurance.	A	F	O	R	N
60	F	Dental plan.	A	F	O	R	N
61	F	Assistance for carrying out laboratory tests and/or purchasing medicines (e.g., agreements with clinical analysis laboratories and pharmacies).	A	F	O	R	N
62	F	The incentive for qualification (e.g., flexible working hours during the qualification period and granting a scholarship).	A	F	O	R	N
63	F	The incentive to participate in leisure and cultural activities (e.g., agreements with movies and clubs, among others).	A	F	O	R	N
64	F	Childcare assistance.	A	F	O	R	N
		Employee family members receive benefits such as the following:
65	F	Health insurance.	A	F	O	R	N
66	F	Dental plan.	A	F	O	R	N
67	F	The incentive for qualification (e.g., flexible working hours during the qualification period and granting a scholarship).	A	F	O	R	N
68	F	The incentive to participate in leisure and cultural activities (e.g., agreements with cinemas and clubs, among others).	A	F	O	R	N
69	F	Life insurance.	A	F	O	R	N
70	F	Assistance for carrying out laboratory tests and/or purchasing medicines (e.g., agreements with clinical analysis laboratories and pharmacies).	A	F	O	R	N
71	F	Study aid for the employee’s family member.	A	F	O	R	N
72	F	There is space reserved for breastfeeding.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.7
Sub-Axis 2.8—Quality of life
73	F	Periodic get-togethers outside working hours are promoted.	A				N
74	F	Frequent food and nutrition education actions are carried out for employees.	A				N
75	F	Work exercises are promoted during working hours.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 2.8
Response frequency—Axis 2 (∑Sub-Axes 2.1 to 2.8)
Axis 3—Consumer
Sub-Axis 3.1—Health promotion
76	F	Frequent food and nutrition education actions are carried out with customers to promote healthy eating habits.	A				N
77	F	The menu is planned while considering the nutritional and health profile of the clientele.	A	F	O	R	N
78	F	The menu includes preparations that respect the culture and eating habits of customers.	A				N
79	F	Workflows are monitored and tailored to eliminate cross-contamination.	A	F	O	R	N
80	O	The food service has a good practices manual implemented.	A	F	O	R	N
81	O	Food services and commercial establishments that transport food must have Standard Operating Procedures that describe the method of cleaning vehicles and their frequency.	A	F	O	R	N
		To ensure the hygienic/sanitary quality of meals, the following actions are carried out:
82	O	Quality control of raw materials during receipt and storage (e.g., sensory aspects, temperature, validity, etc.).	A	F	O	R	N
83	O	Cleaning of facilities, equipment, furniture, and fixtures.	A	F	O	R	N
84	O	Cleaning of personal protective equipment and uniforms.	A	F	O	R	N
85	O	Cleaning of foods that will be consumed raw.	A	F	O	R	N
86	O	Assessment of water quality when using alternative water supply solution (e.g., artesian well).	A	F	O	R	N
87	O	Sample withdrawal from preparations.	A	F	O	R	N
88	O	Integrated vector and urban pest control.	A	F	O	R	N
		Time and temperature control is performed during the following meal production and distribution/storage steps:
89	O	Pre-preparation (thawing, processing, and desalting).	A	F	O	R	N
90	O	Cooking.	A	F	O	R	N
91	O	Meal transport.	A	F	O	R	N
92	O	Wait for distribution.	A	F	O	R	N
93	O	Exposure for consumption.	A	F	O	R	N
94	O	The clean leftovers from the preparations are used under strict time and temperature control.	A	F	O	R	N
95	O	There is a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program in place.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 3.1
Sub-Axis 3.2—Promotion of conscious consumption
		The following information is made available to the customer, whether or not it is requested by the customer:
96	F	Menu.	A	F	O	R	N
97	F	The updated ingredients list of preparations.	A	F	O	R	N
98	F	Updated nutritional information of preparations.	A	F	O	R	N
99	F	Portion weight/size.	A	F	O	R	N
100	F	The rest intake of the preparations is monitored.	A	F	O	R	N
101	F	Frequent educational actions are carried out for consumption without food waste.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 3.2
Sub-Axis 3.3—Relationship with the consumer
102	F	There are channels to receive requests, complaints, and suggestions from the consumer (for example ombudsman, customer service through applications, telephone chat or email, and social networks, among others).	A				N
103	F	Employees are trained to ensure prompt service and an ethical relationship with respect for consumer rights.	A	F	O	R	N
104	F	Requests, complaints, and suggestions from consumers are returned promptly.	A	F	O	R	N
105	F	Consumer satisfaction assessments are carried out.	A	F	O	R	N
106	O	Guidelines are provided on consumers’ rights and duties (e.g., consumer protection code).	A				N
107	O	Advertisements about food services do not put people in prejudiced or disrespectful situations.	A	F	O	R	N
108	O	Consumers are provided with reliable information on environmental and social factors related to the production and delivery of their products and services.	A				N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 3.3
Response frequency—Axis 3 (∑Sub-Axes 3.1 to 3.3)
Axis 4—Supplier
Sub-Axis 4.1—Selection of suppliers
109	F	When preparing the menu, the availability and profile of local suppliers are taken into account.	A				N
110	F	Priority is given to small local producers (family farming).	A	F	O	R	N
111	F	Priority is given to suppliers who adopt actions to reduce environmental impacts during the input production chain.	A	F	O	R	N
112	F	The use of products from suppliers that adopt more sustainable technologies and processes has progressively increased.	A				N
113	O	Information is required on the sanitary, environmental, and social conditions in which the purchased goods and services are produced.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 4.1
Sub-Axis 4.2—Supplier development
114	F	Suppliers are professionally trained by the food service to supply inputs compatible with demand.	A	F	O	R	N
115	F	Suppliers are certified by the food service when they participate in the training.	A	F	O	R	N
116	F	Suppliers are formally (in writing) or informally (verbally) notified of necessary improvements in the service or product being provided.	A	F	O	R	N
117	F	Suppliers are monitored regarding the implementation of the requested improvements.	A	F	O	R	N
118	F	The food service makes a financial investment to improve the supplier’s operation.	A	F	O	R	N
119	F	The food service promotes integration between suppliers.	A	F	O	R	N
120	O	Suppliers are evaluated based on established criteria about the quality control of products and raw materials supplied.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 4.2
Response frequency—Axis 5 (∑Sub-Axes 4.1 and 4.2)
Axis 5—Community
Sub-Axis 5.1—Commitment to community development
121	F	There is an area/commission or a person responsible for community development actions.	A				N
122	F	There is an annual plan for the implementation or maintenance of social actions aimed at the community.	A				N
123	F	Social actions are carried out only upon requests made by the community.	A				N
124	F	Actions are carried out to promote health, encouraging healthy lifestyles, including physical exercise and good nutrition.	A				N
125	F	When available, tax incentive resources are allocated to social or cultural projects.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 5.1
Sub-Axis 5.2—Management of social actions
126	F	Diagnostics are carried out for the definition and planning of social actions carried out within the community.	A	F	O	R	N
127	F	Partnerships with other organizations are carried out to maximize social actions.	A	F	O	R	N
128	F	Employee participation is encouraged during the planning and/or execution of social actions undertaken by the food service.	A	F	O	R	N
129	F	The results of the social projects carried out by the food service are disseminated among the employees.	A	F	O	R	N
130	F	The results of social projects carried out by the food service are disseminated to the community.	A	F	O	R	N
Response frequency—Sub-Axis 5.2
Response frequency—Axis 5 (∑Sub-Axes 5.1 and 5.2)
Global response frequency (∑ all axes)

^a Answer legend: A—always; F—frequently; O—occasionally; A—rarely; N—never. ^b Code Legend: F, optional; O, mandatory in Brazil.

).

A significant number of items in the list (45%) referred to actions that must be carried out in establishments, as found in Brazilian legislations and regulations (Table 2). The axis with the highest number of items was related to employees (62 items; see Table 2 and Table 3). On the list, actions related to food-service consumers comprised the second major axis of the instrument (33 items), and unlike the axis about employees, it contained actions that were mostly optionally carried out by establishments.

The response options of items were the frequency scale “always/never” or “always/often/occasionally/rarely/never” (Table 3).

3.4. Calculation of Results

The calculation of the result for each sub-axis, axis, and global can be performed through the following equation:

$$\mathrm{Index}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{social}\mathrm{sustainability}(\%)=\left[\frac{\left(1.0\times \mathrm{Na}\right)+\left(0.75\times \mathrm{Nf}\right)+\left(0.5\times \mathrm{No}\right)+\left(0.25\times \mathrm{Nr}\right)}{\mathrm{N}}\right]\times 100$$

where Na is the absolute frequency of the response “always”, Nf is the absolute frequency of the response “frequently”, No is the absolute frequency of the response “occasionally”, and Nr is the absolute frequency of the response “rarely”. N will vary depending on the group of items under analysis; it might be the total number of items of the list (n = 130), the total number of items on the axis or sub-axis, or the total number of items classified as optional or mandatory that are disponible in Table 3.

4. Discussion

A comprehensive review of the literature demonstrated that the social-dimension indicators are less represented than those of the other sustainability dimensions [28]. Due to this, the few instruments to assess social sustainability still cannot capture the complexity and particularities of food services. To our knowledge, this is the first study about validating an exclusive instrument to assess socially sustainable practices in food services.

4.1. Validation of the Instrument

Measuring instruments are essential in obtaining data on sustainability. However, the quality of the results obtained derives from the validity of the instruments [29]. The instrument validation process evaluates the degree to which the instrument assesses or measures the construct of interest and has as an initial step the assessment of content [30]. Developing and validating an instrument requires the use of rigorous methods. In this process, the Delphi technique used in this study has occupied a prominent position for allowing a panel of experts to carry out content validation, facilitating the construction of consensus among experts [31].

The evaluation by a panel of experts free to comment on what they thought was necessary to improve the instrument contributed to strengthening the questionnaire [12]. With this, the first validation phase revealed the need for examples to be incorporated into some items and to expand the understanding of specialists and, consequently, of instrument users. Furthermore, it also highlighted the need for items derived from Brazilian legislation and regulations to be written by using a less complex language than that adopted in official documents. For all of this, the content validation and evaluation process of the instrument developed in this study allowed the items to be clear and understandable [32].

4.2. Instrument Structure

The inclusion of mandatory and voluntary compliance items made the instrument that was developed highly comprehensive. The promotion of sustainability is not restricted to actions carried out voluntarily in establishments, although some professionals working in food services may have this perception. One of the first commitments that can be assumed by a food service aimed at promoting social sustainability is the fulfillment of a series of legal requirements related to labor, the environment, and health which can directly or indirectly affect the establishment’s stakeholders, the environment, or the community.

On the other hand, the adoption of the voluntary practice of social sustainability demonstrates the establishment’s social responsibility [33]. It is important that the voluntary execution of actions by the establishment must be carried out primarily intentionally and must be included in the organizational planning of the service, instead of sporadic realization, which can assume the connotation of marketing exclusively implemented to leverage the company, product, or brand [34]. In this way, although optional, corporate social responsibility, as a way to promote social sustainability, must be integrated into the long-term business strategy and treated as one of its core long-term business functions [9].

In addition to the number, wording, content, and types of questions, the answer options are a determinant of the quality of the results obtained, since they affect how respondents understand the options [35]. The decision regarding the number of response options comprises two conflicting aspects. On the one hand, the greater the number of options, the greater the refinement of the description obtained. On the other hand, respondents may not be able to respond adequately when given a greater number of options [36]. Because of this, in this study, most of the items on the list have a five-point answer scale that enables managers to identify small changes in the evolution of sustainable adoption in food services.

4.3. Axes of the List

The elaboration of an exclusive instrument for food services enabled a comprehensive instrument that included specific items related to different axes of the organizational and managerial environment, employees, customers, suppliers, and communities. The general aspects related to each axis present in the instrument are discussed below.

The consistent implementation of socially sustainable actions requires the existence of an innovative and dynamic “organizational and managerial environment”. In this, sustainability is part of the strategy, planning, and management commitment of establishments [37]. Using organizational strategies, the organization must be designed in a way that allows managers and employees to act as a unit in building a socially sustainable establishment [38]. It is important to highlight that the employees of a company are more open to engaging in behavior when the workplace has a policy and takes concrete actions that demonstrate its willingness to behave sustainably [39].

Currently, there is greater concern among professionals and academics about the need to promote socially sustainable human resource management [40], although few advances are known specifically in food services. Employees can be the most likely to benefit from its implementation in food services, and this was corroborated by the fact that the axis prevails over the others in terms of the number of items. This occurred, in part, because work, especially in Brazil, is governed by a vast legal framework. This makes the efforts to guarantee workers’ rights an extremely important aspect of the promotion of social sustainability [6].

During the execution of their activities, employees of food services undergo a work environment with factors that can have a direct effect on their well-being and psychological health [38,41]. In this way, as part of its social obligations related to employees, the establishment must balance the human needs of its employees with environmental and cultural aspects [42].

The obligations for social sustainability related to employees of food services start from the project phase, where the architectural project must incorporate aspects related to the physiological comfort and satisfaction, productivity, safety, and health of the occupants; remuneration and benefit policies; and professional and personal development [5,6]. Furthermore, the construction of social sustainability should not only improve the quality of life but also develop skills and empower the less privileged, thus providing a fair distribution of social benefits [5]. Certainly, these practices can contribute to improving the quality of life and increasing the motivation of food service employees, which can be crucial for the quality of the service provided and affect the profitability of food service in the long term.

The promotion of sustainable social practices in food services should also be directed to the main actors outside the work environment, such as consumers. The absence of a specific instrument to evaluate food services makes it difficult to measure the main contributions socially conducted in this establishment: promoting consumer health through food. Human health and sustainability are linked in complex and multidirectional ways, and safe food is an integral element of the intersection between them [43,44]. For this, the provision of nutritionally adequate meals requires that the menus be prepared based on the profile, culture, and customs of the target audience [45,46]. In addition, attention to legislation related to the hygienic/sanitary control of food is a key issue for maintaining consumer health [45].

Consumers in general are increasingly aware of sustainability issues, which have affected their behavior and, especially, their choices [46,47]. The most attentive consumers, who care about their health and are aware of environmental issues, change their behavior to conscious consumption patterns [47]. These standards contribute to food and nutritional security and a healthy life for current and future generations by having a reduced environmental impact [48]. Furthermore, it is protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable, nutritionally adequate, and safe and healthy, while optimizing natural and human resources [48].

One of the main ways to promote conscious consumption in food services is through food and nutrition education activities. For several reasons, we can see that an apparent difficulty exists for consumers to translate the recognition of the importance of sustainability into real changes in eating habits [49,50]. This is mainly because consumers seem unaware of how their food choices impact sustainability [51]. Thus, food and nutritional education actions are extremely important to balancing health motivation with concerns over sustainability during food consumption, an essential dilemma for consumers, particularly due to the very little dietary guidance available [52]. In this way, with consumers aware, food services can directly align with two of the goals for sustainable development that were established in 2015 by FAO [14]: zero hunger (FAO’s second goal) and responsible consumption and production (FAO’s twelfth goal).

Another crucial aspect for promoting sustainability in food services is the consumer relationship [53]. Nowadays, customers want quick and complete answers to their questions, which forces companies to offer a variety of communication channels so that consumers can choose how to express their perceptions about the services they use [54]. In this way, among other actions, effective forms of communication must be established, which aim to provide information related to the rights and duties of consumers, thus allowing the dissemination of socially sustainable initiatives adopted within companies and permitting consumers [54].

The suppliers are actors that are more external to the food services and that are vital to a sustainable food supply chain [55]. The selection of sustainable suppliers requires the use of diversified criteria, among which may include job creation, health and safety systems, shareholder rights, employee rights, and information disclosure [56].

Just as knowledge about social sustainability in food service is incipient, the availability of sustainable suppliers for establishments may be limited. In this scenario, like other establishments, food services can cooperate with existing suppliers to achieve higher levels of sustainability [57]. Through actions of this nature, food services can contribute to improving the well-being of the supplier, its valuation, the quality of its employees, and the fulfillment of its rights [58]. Given this, food services can use practices for the development of suppliers already implemented in establishments, including the elaboration of standard operating procedures and the performance of training and audits [59]. Furthermore, the contribution to equity between the different actors that, in one way or another, compose the food service team, allows them to select sustainable suppliers, especially those belonging to the local community [60].

Supplier training also plays a very important role in involving them in sustainable practices. It builds trust between the parties, thus fostering innovation and the development of skills to better apply sustainability [59]. In parallel, the commitment to social sustainability can be disseminated by suppliers to other food services, since restaurant managers are, above all, inspired by their suppliers to implement sustainable practices in the establishments under their management [61].

Finally, food services also have a great impact on the community in which they are located and can act in their sustainable development. The first practices refer to the care of the environment through actions such as recycling and the control of residues and pollutants. However, positive impacts can result from the promotion of social actions within these.

The social aspect, when applied in the context of the community, can be presented by the proximity of the food service to the community itself and the means of communication used between the service, the supplier, and the consumer, contributing toward the sustainable development of the community [60]. Actions that reinforce the food service’s commitment to the development of the community, such as encouraging local commerce, developing suppliers through training in sustainable actions, and promoting healthy eating through nutritional education, provide meaningful benefits to the community [62].

5. Conclusions

The instrument developed presented internal consistency among the evaluators and sufficient content validity to assess the presence of socially sustainable practices within food services. Therefore, it can be used as a measure to verify the implementation of social sustainability within the food services, thereby helping the managers and technicians responsible for the unit with social sustainability measures and, thus, ensuring the socially sustainable production of meals.

This study did not exhaust the gap related to social sustainability in food services. In this sense, further studies are needed to assess the reliability and reproducibility of the validated instrument in a reduced sample. Furthermore, it is still important to assess the reproducibility of using the checklist in a significant number of food services and its contribution to the implementation and verification of socially sustainable practices in these establishments.