Energy Reduction and Benchmarking in Commercial Kitchens

S. A. Hearnshaw*, E.A Essah*, A. Grandison* and R. Felgate**

*Technologies for Sustainable Built Environments, JJ Thompson Building, University of
Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 220, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AF, UK.
S.Hearnshaw@pgr.reading.ac.uk
**Mitchells & Butlers PLC, 27 Fleet Street, Birmingham, B3 1JP, UK

ABSTRACT
Commercial kitchens are one of the most profligate users of gas, water and electricity in the
UK and can leave a large carbon footprint. It is estimated that the total energy consumption
of Britain’s catering industry is in excess of 21,600 million kWh per year. In order to achieve
sustainability, there are many avenues of investigation and innovation that may be applied.
Achieving large savings within commercial kitchens may be attained by more appropriate
kitchen design, equipment and menu design and staff operating behaviours. Resulting savings
would be transferred directly to the net-profitability of the operators.
In order to facilitate appropriate energy reduction within a large chain of commercial
kitchens, energy use must be translated into a form that can be compared between kitchens to
enable operators to assess how they are improving and to allow rapid identification of
facilities which require action. A review of relevant literature and current benchmarking
methods are discussed in order to assist in the development and categorisation of
benchmarking energy reduction in commercial kitchens. Energy use within an industry
leading operator was analysed using data from automated meter readings (AMR) for the
purpose of benchmarking and discussed in terms of factors such as size and output.
Recommendations are made to further improve the current benchmarking methods to attain a
robust, reliable, transparent and easily updatable basis for the benchmark, such as the
introduction of normalised performance indicators to include operational and environmental
energy use.

Keywords:
Benchmarking, Commercial Kitchen, Energy-reduction,

1. INTRODUCTION

The total energy consumption of Britain’s catering industry is estimated to be in excess of

21,600 million kWh per year (CIBSE 2009). According to the Catering for a Sustainable
Future Group (CSFG) white paper on climate change, over 30% of this consumption is used
in purely commercial catering establishments, with another 17% in hotel restaurants and
guest houses (CSFG 2009). The remaining 50% is consumed within non-commercial catering
establishments such as schools, hospitals and Ministry of Defence organisations which are
outside the scope of this work (CIBSE 2009).
There are many avenues of investigation and opportunity for energy reduction in commercial
kitchens. This ranges from the utilisation of more energy efficient equipment and cooking
techniques to innovations in food storage and equipment and menu design. Appropriate
kitchen design and staff operating behaviours are also relevant to energy reduction (W. J.
Batty, M. A. Conway et al. 1988). Any savings made are transferred directly to the net-
profitability of the operators. Before the implementation of energy saving strategies,
procedures must be in place to monitor and target energy use. The production and evaluation
of benchmarks provides a mechanism for the long term management of energy use; it is
insufficient to simply measure and analyse energy consumption. This information has to be
presented in a form comparable between similar businesses in order to assess improving
energy consumption and allow quick identification of the worst performers to be targeted for
action. There are currently three published benchmarking methodologies from the Chartered
institute of Building Services (CIBSE), the Catering for a Sustainable Future Group (CSFG)
and the Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA). While they
provide a basis, further work is required to meet the practical requirements of average
businesses. The energy consumption in commercial kitchens is a complicated picture and
there are many factors that need to be considered before an appropriate benchmark can be
calculated.
Mitchells & Butlers (MAB) is the UK’s leading operator of pubs and restaurants, operating
sixteen brands of commercial kitchens with a total of approximately 1,600 sites serving a
combined approximate of 125 million meals and 425 million drinks each year (Mitchells &
Butlers Plc 2011). As such, their businesses serve as an excellent basis for the application of
practical energy reduction and benchmarking techniques. For the purposes of this study,
Metro Professionals, Innkeepers Lodge and Alex brands have been omitted due to lack of
relevant data. Under the current benchmarking systems, all of the brands would be included
under the umbrella of “restaurant”. However between brands and within the same brand, sites
differ in kitchen size, equipment volumes and connected load, food and drink output, menu
and service style and geographical location.

2. CURRENT BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY

In most commercial facilities, energy benchmarks are expressed in terms of kWh/m2. This is
largely inappropriate for a commercial kitchen setting; a kitchen producing 30 covers from a
given area would record wildly different energy performance statistics than a kitchen
producing 60 covers from the same area. Values expressed in kWh/m2 are useful for
comparing against different industries for example, commercial kitchens frequently use ten
times more energy per square meter than the average commercial building (CIBSE 2009).

2.1 CIBSE and BSRIA Benchmarking Methodology

Energy benchmarks are expressed in various formats in relevant literature. These have been
summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Annual Benchmarks

Good Typical Basis of

Kitchen Type Practice Practice Benchmark
CIBSE Guide F "restaurants with bar"* 650 730 kWh/m2
CIBSE Guide F "restaurants in public house"* 1300 1500 kWh/cover
CIBSE Guide F "fast food outlet"* 820 890 kWh/m2
kWh/m2 per
CIBSE Guide F "public houses"* 0.8 1.8 £1000 turnover
CIBSE Guide F "business hotel"* 80 140 kWh/m2
BSRIA "Restaurants"** - 90 kWh/m2
*
(CIBSE 2004) CIBSE Guide F Energy efficiency in buildings
**
(BSRIA 2011) Rules of Thumb. 5th Edition

It can be clearly noted from Table 1 that there are discrepancies in the basis of the
benchmarking methods for various kitchens; even within the same publications. Large
variations in the values expressed using the same methodology also occur, for example, the
CIBSE “restaurant with bar” benchmark is 8 times larger than the BSRIA benchmark for
“restaurants” even though they are both based on kWh/m2. It is not stated in either
methodology whether gross floor areas of the entire building have been used or whether total
dining area was used and this may contribute to the differences in final values; this suggests
the need for a standardised benchmarking system for commercial kitchens.
The CIBSE Institution attempts to address the benchmark in relation to number of meals, by
combining several approaches in their guide “TM50” for commercial kitchens (CIBSE 2009).
The average annual electricity and fossil fuel usage data in kWh/m2 from a large number of
facilities with a good cross section of appliances and operational methods was established.
This data can then be used to generate an energy benchmark per meal by the following
stages:
1. The total annual energy used per place setting is calculated for each building type
(Benchmark in kWh/m2 multiplied by average area of place setting).
2. Energy use per meal is then calculated (total energy per place setting divided by
number of meals per place setting).
Within the CIBSE guide, the resulting figures are categorised as follows:

• the bottom 70% are categorised as ‘Typical’

• the next 20% are categorised as ‘Good Practice’
• the next 5% are categorised as ‘Innovative’
• the top 5% are categorised as ‘Pioneering’

The CIBSE figures generated from this process are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: CIBSE Adjusted Benchmarks (kWh/meal)
Facility Area to Yearly Annual Energy benchmark per meal produced (kWh/meal)
Type support sales per bench- Good Practice Typical Practice
one place mark
place setting (kWh/m2)
setting / from
cover (m2) CIBSE Fossil Electri- Fossil Electri-
Guide F Fuel city Total Fuel city Total
See Table
Coffee Shop 1.8 2190 1* 0.90 0.53 1.43 1.03 0.60 1.63
Fine Dining See Table
Restaurant 4.4 912 1* 5.31 3.14 8.45 6.03 3.52 9.55
Staff See Table
Restaurant 2.1 936 1* 2.47 1.46 3.93 2.81 1.64 4.45
Themed See Table
Restaurant 2.4 1278 1* 2.07 1.22 3.29 2.35 1.37 3.72
Traditional
Restaurant
(Full See Table
Service) 2.6 1095 1* 2.61 1.54 4.15 2.97 1.73 4.7
Fast Food See Table
Outlet 1 910 1 ** 0.53 0.9 1.43 0.98 0.74 1.72
* Calculated using Table 1, row 1 “CIBSE Guide F (restaurants with bar)” ** Calculated using Table
1, row 1 “CIBSE Guide F (Fast Food Outlet)”

It is crucial that benchmark figures being used for comparisons are relevant to the particular
facility being analysed, particularly with regards to multi functioning sites which may contain
a bar area and a restaurant facility, or in cases where the site is a drinks-led business. On
closer inspection of the CIBSE methodology, it is apparent that for each of the various
kitchen types outlined in Table 2, except for “Fast Food Outlet”, the adjusted benchmark in
kWh/meal has been calculated using the same kWh/m2 annual benchmark values from Table
1 from CIBSE guide F. This seems counterintuitive, as a coffee shop, which more often
serves lighter and less energy intensive meals such as sandwiches, would have a lower
kWh/m2 annual benchmark than a fine dining restaurant. A coffee shop is likely to be smaller
in size and have reduced operating hours when compared to a family restaurant, as discussed
in Section 3.2.
The CIBSE guide endeavours to distinguish between the environmental and operational
portions within the total energy benchmarks by designating a 40/60 division; 40% of the total
energy is deemed to be used in sustaining a comfortable environment to include lighting, air
conditioning, ventilation, heating etc. (CIBSE 2009). The remaining 60% is categorised as
operational energy – the energy required to provide a food service operation e.g. preparation,
cooking, warewashing etc. There is no explanation of how CIBSE have determined which
forms of energy usage fall into which of these categories.

2.2 Catering for a Sustainable Future Group Benchmarking Methodology

The Catering for a Sustainable Future Group (CSFG) has produced a benchmarking method
based on operational and environmental systems. In the CSFG system, 42% of total energy
use is designated as environmental and the remaining 58% as operational. In this system, the
benchmark is calculated in the following stages:
1. A theoretical estimation of the annual energy consumption is calculated, by multiplying
the CIBSE published kWh/m2 annual benchmark by gross floor area.
2. A theoretical estimation of “number of covers” is calculated by the number of seats
multiplied by the daily turnover per seat, multiplied by the number of trading days.
3. The operational energy usage portion (58%) is then calculated from the estimated total
and divided by the total number of covers (Step 2).

The use of the operational fraction per meal in the CSFG method differs from the CISBE and
BSRIA methods, which base their calculations on total energy use. Again, there is no
explanation of how CSFG have determined which usage falls into the operational or
environmental category.

3. Benchmarking at Mitchells & Butlers

As the work of CIBSE covers a range of industries and building types, their efforts provide a
good framework for the basic methodology for further work, as does the CSFG methodology.
However, for the purposes of benchmarking energy use within MAB establishments this
process must be adjusted for reasons outlined below, to generate more accurate
benchmarking guides and subsequent targets. In addition, the existing data published in
CIBSE Guide F is over a decade old and requires updating (CIBSE 2004). It is hoped this
work will further contribute to the CIBSE published guides.
3.1 Data Collection

Electricity consumption data has been retrieved from automated meter readings (AMR) from
the period of one year (March 2011-2012 financial year). Gas data is not currently available.
AMR data is the remote collection of consumption data by meters over telecommunication
lines, radio, power line or other links. Meters are installed at each outlet which transmit the
data (in kilowatt hours) to the intermediate communication controllers at half hourly
intervals. This data is then routed by these controllers to a central computer.
The AMR data has been totalled and averaged for each brand, using Excel, the total and
average figures have been obtained. Data concerning the estimated dining area, number of
meals and number of covers has been retrieved from the MAB database and averaged over
each of the brands. All entries with incomplete data regarding floor area, number of meals or
number of place settings were omitted prior to averaging. Any site with an incomplete energy
data set for the year was also removed. Eventually the final data set was reduced from 1506
sites to 813.

3.2 Critical Analysis and Recommended Adjustments

3.2.1 Business output

The kitchen output (number of meals or NOMS) is the most relevant factor influencing
energy use; however beverage sales still play a large role in energy consumption. Recent
economic circumstances have influenced the majority of British pubs to include food
services, however the sale of liquid beverages is still an important factor in energy
consumption of these established businesses. The use of glycol refrigerants in beverage
cooling systems is the fourth largest energy expense to MAB after the bainmarie, chargrill
and heating systems. As shown in Table 1, the basis of CIBSE benchmarks concerning public
houses is kWh/m2 per £1000 turnover – this may prove to be a more appropriate guide for
these mixed businesses.
The volume of meals produced in MAB sites is very large, producing less understandable
figures (i.e. very small numbers). The introduction of a “per thousand meals” factor may
produce a more readable figure for the scale of MAB outlets.

3.2.2 Geographic location

The location of a site will have an impact on the environmental energy use. For example, a
site in Scotland will require additional energy for heating. The introduction of a factor to
recognise location would be appropriate. For example, the Energy Efficiency Best Practice
Programme suggests a factor of +32 for recreational buildings in Scotland, or -24 for
Southern locations such as Thames Valley (EEBPP 2001). The calculation of this factor
requires further investigation.

3.2.3 Place setting size and covers

To implement the CIBSE or CFSG methodology, the number of meals served per place
setting and average place setting size must be calculated. The retrieval of average place
setting size presents a challenge for M&B as many of the brands cannot provide accurate
estimates of average place size or cover to generate meaningful data. This is due to the
inherent style of the brands; an O’Neill’s site has multi-cover areas to include long benches
or circular table arrangements where the size of the place settings and the number of covers
will vary greatly each day. Some brands employ differently sized tables within each site to
adhere to the desired ambience.
On investigation, energy usage at MAB sites does not correlate with number of covers. As
such it is likely that it will be omitted from benchmarking methodology.

3.2.4 Kitchen categorisation

The CIBSE benchmarking guide gives minimal explanation for what methodology is used to
determine similar businesses. The same “annual energy benchmark” in kWh/m2 has been
applied to all categories regardless of operating style, equipment volume and menu type. By
producing benchmarks at a brand level at MAB, factors such as operating hours, service
styles and equipment volumes will be normalised. However, for the wider sector, benchmarks
should be produced with a view to categorisation by operating hours, style and equipment
levels. The data in CIBSE TM50 uses a “cross section of appliances and operational
methods” for the basis of its benchmark and applies it across the whole commercial kitchen
sector when it is likely that menu style and associated equipment volumes differences in a
coffee shop when compared to a steak house. It is hoped that this will be investigated further
in the future.

3.2.5 Operational and environmental energy

As stated in Section 2 above, there is no explanation of how CIBSE or CSFG have

determined which energy utilising items will fall into the environmental or operational
categories. There are certain examples that do not clearly fall into either category given the
minimal definition in the guides, for example electricity usage within the staff
accommodation and even the energy attributed to ventilation may be seen as environmental
and/or operational. This makes it difficult for businesses to follow the same methodology to
assess their energy use in comparison to the benchmark.
Each brands operational and environmental energy ratios differs significantly due to the
nature of the business. These variations include the size of the kitchen connected load,
lighting levels and additional entertainment facilities (heating smoking areas, gaming
facilities etc). This information is required to assess how a kitchen is performing and enable
accurate monitoring and targeting of the most significant contributor to the energy use of the
building, i.e. food preparation. For the purposes of this study environmental energy includes
all lighting, heating, various alarm systems, air conditioning, office and toilet usages. The
operational, environmental split for each of the M&B brands is detailed in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Calculated Operational and Environmental Energy Portions

Brand Operational % Environmental %

All Bar One 68.0 32.0
Browns 61.9 38.2
Castle 64.9 35.1
Crown Carvery 63.0 37.0
Ember 67.6 32.5
Harvester 65.2 34.8
Miller & Carter 65.3 34.8
Nicholson's 65.1 34.9
Oak tree Pubs 68.4 31.7
O'Neills 68.8 31.2
PCDG 68.6 31.4
Sizzling Pubs 67.6 32.4
Toby Carvery 63.5 36.5
Village Pub & Kitchen 67.8 32.2
Vintage 67.1 32.9
Total Estate 66.1 33.9

It is suggested that kitchen operators will be responsible for only the operational portion of
the total energy benchmark (CIBSE 2009), however this is not usually the case as practically,
the operational and environmental portions of the average businesses will not be known
unless sub-metering is utilised. In addition, at MAB sites, the building manager is responsible
for the overall energy consumption.

It is apparent however that the environmental energy usage relates to the floor area of the
building and the operational portion relates to number of meals. This might suggest the use of
a coefficient base on the following;
[(Total energy use x operational percentage) / NOMS] + [(total energy x environmental
percentage) / m2]

4. CONCLUSIONS

The vast disparities in the methodology and final values currently published under BSRIA
and CIBSE suggest the need for standardisation in the benchmarking process for commercial
kitchens. It is apparent that within MAB establishments, energy use does not correlate well
with number of covers or building size. In addition, the current benchmarking methodologies
cannot be applied to MAB sites and given that MAB are the largest operator of restaurants
and pubs in the UK, a revised method is required.
The recommendations made in Section 3 could be adopted to improve the quality of the
current data published by providing an accurate basis for the sector’s energy reduction
targets. It is hoped that the suggestions detailed here will aid owners and operators of
commercial kitchens to understand the problems and potential solutions in calculating
meaningful benchmarks to suit their individual requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported and funded by the Technologies for Sustainable Built
Environments (TSBE) centre, Reading, in conjunction with the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Mitchell’s and Butler’s plc.
In addition to the credited authors, without which this study would not have been possible,
special thanks must be made to James Sharman for his assistance with MAB business
metrics.

REFERENCES
BSRIA (2011). Rules of Thumb. BSRIA Ltd. Old Bracknell Lane West Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12
7AH, UK.

CIBSE (2004). CIBSE Guide F Energy efficiency in buildings. The Chartered Institution of Building
Services Engineers, 222 Balham High Road, London SW12 9BS.

CIBSE (2009). TM50 - Energy Efficiency in Commercial Kitchens. The Chartered Institution of
Building Services Engineers, 222 Balham High Road, London SW12 9BS, The Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and Catering for a Sustainable Future
Group (CSFG)

CSFG (2009). White Paper on Climate Change - A Sector Strategy for Energy Efficient Commercial
Kitchens The Catering for a Sustainable Future Group (CSFG).

EEBPP (2001). Energy use in sports and recreation buildings. Energy Consumption Guide 78, Energy
Efficiency Best Practice Programme.

Mitchells & Butlers Plc (2011). Mitchells & Butlers Plc - Final Results 2011. Financial Results 2011.

W. J. Batty, M. A. Conway, et al. (1988). "Effects of Operative Behaviours and Management

Planning on Energy Consumptions in Kitchens." Applied Energy 31: 205-220.