Paolo Corvo, Michele Filippo Fontefrancesco & Raffaele Matacena
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-
Break and Canteens for Wellbeing at Work
in Europe
Paolo Corvo, Michele Filippo
Fontefrancesco & Raffaele Matacena
Social Indicators Research
An International and Interdisciplinary
Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement
ISSN 0303-8300
Soc Indic Res
DOI 10.1007/s11205-020-02353-4
1 23Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23
Author's personal copy
Social Indicators Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02353-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch‑Break and Canteens
for Wellbeing at Work in Europe
Paolo Corvo1 · Michele Filippo Fontefrancesco1 · Raffaele Matacena2
Accepted: 20 April 2020
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
Workers’ wellbeing at work is a central theme for the development of institutions and enter-
prises. Within this debate, a central issue relates to the search for the best ways to organize
lunch-breaks and food services for employees. In the past, canteens had a crucial role for
workers, yet the last twenty years have marked a profound transformation of the European
economy, with the effect of diversifying workers’ foodways and their food-related practices
while at work. Based on the research “Eating at Work” conducted by the University of
Gastronomic Sciences in 2015–2016, this paper analyses the consumer behavior at lunch
of almost 9400 workers, from ten different European countries. By exploring the work-
ers’ foodways during lunch-breaks and how they answer to their individual needs in terms
of nutrition, socialization, productivity and overall satisfaction, the paper points out that
the lunch-break has major implications in boosting wellbeing at work, thus suggesting the
essential role canteens have the potential to carry out.
Keywords Wellbeing at work · Canteens · Lunch-break · Food choices · Quality of life
1 Introduction
This article investigates the ongoing transformations affecting eating at work in Europe,
considering the central role played by canteens during the last century and the emergence
of new foodways across the continent. In particular, it tackles the issue concerning how
lunch-breaks can boost workers’ perceptions of wellbeing at work. In this respect, while in
general culture canteens may have taken a derogatory significance, this analysis reconsid-
ers them and suggests they can still play a key role in reinforcing employees’ wellbeing, in
* Michele Filippo Fontefrancesco
m.fontefrancesco@unisg.it
Paolo Corvo
p.corvo@unisg.it
Raffaele Matacena
raffaele.matacena@unimib.it
1
University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra, Italy
2
University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
13
Vol.:(0123456789)Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
particular in so far as the canteen is able to answer to the necessity of better work produc-
tivity and sociality on the workplace.
This article draws on the data collected during the research “Eating at Work” conducted
by the University of Gastronomic Sciences together with Eurest, Compass Group and TNS.
The research surveyed the habits of workers in 10 countries representative of the European
area: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom. Here, the results are extensively presented and commented on to
verify whether canteens are still strategic assets for the present and future European econ-
omy and what kind of services they should provide in order to be able to improve workers’
wellbeing.
The paper opens with a description of the social context of eating at work in Europe,
in particular how it has evolved during the past century (Sect. 2). Then, it introduces the
investigated social indicators (Sect. 3), for then presenting the research “Eating at Work”
and its methodology (Sect. 4). The results are exposed in the central part of the article,
starting with an overview of the outcomes of the European survey, followed by an outlin-
ing of the characteristics of each country (Sect. 5). Based on the data, the analysis points
out that for being relevant to employees’ wellbeing, canteens should not just be providers
of cheap food but, in the wake of European foodways transformation, should also meet the
standard of being comfortable places for socialization and offer an array of tasty products
that respond to the need for a work-effective and healthy diet (Sects. 6–7).
2 The Social Transformations of Eating at Work
The past one hundred years have marked a structural change in food habits in all Euro-
pean countries (Corvo 2015). This transformation followed the deep social and economic
changes that the continent experienced. In the early decades of the twentieth century,
the majority of the European population was still concentrated in the countryside (Bravo
2013), basing its economy on agricultural activities mostly aimed at self-subsistence
(Abel 2006). It was only in the second half of the century that post-war industrialization
altered this balance and opened a new, fast urbanization. At the same time, agriculture fully
entered a phase of mechanization that led to the abandonment of traditional practices of
production and social organization (Bravo 2013; Cuisinier 1990; Tomka 2013). Social sci-
ences have often discussed the economic and social changes that occurred with the so-
called third industrial revolution (Giddens 1990; Harvey 1990; Marcuse 1991). In the same
vein, many observers also looked at the fundamental changes that occurred in the foodways
of Europeans and the cultural perception of food (Oddy et al. 2016).
In Europe, the twentieth century testified to the eventual overcoming of endemic hun-
ger, which still characterized life in the nineteenth century, not only in the countryside
(Oddy et al 2016; Sorcinelli 1999). However, still during the 1950s, European popular cul-
ture had not yet forgotten the idea of food scarcity and precariousness—in so far as daily
food aplenty was idealized into proverbs, legends, and myths, such as the one of ‘cock-
aigne’ (Camporesi 1981; Cocchiara 1980)—and domestic food consumption still partially
hinged on an ideal model of self-sufficiency particularly rooted in rural communities. Food
embodied a central piece in working class and peasant culture, but it was only in middle-
and higher-class households that food found dedicated spaces and rooms, such as kitchen
and pantries, while more humble houses were characterized by a substantial functional
mingling of living spaces (Canobbio and Telmon 2007; Cieraad 1999; Freeman 2003).
13Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Thus, food was an interstitial object that became part of the everyday landscape by adapt-
ing spaces and concurrently adapting itself to the spaces lived by people: the stove used to
heat the living room was also the main tool for cooking, and during work times, in facto-
ries as well as in the fields, workers had their lunches brought from home, consumed by
pausing their activities and eating on their tools and machineries. Even taverns and clubs,
which appear as places specialized for food consumption, had a mixed function, suspended
between canteens and places of gathering and recreation (Capatti 2000).
With the post-world-war-two capitalist development of the economy, instead, a trans-
formative process of division between food and non-food spaces was kindled. The overall
growth of average household incomes, as well as the availability of new technologies, such
as electric equipment, refrigerators, and gas kitchens, laid the basis for a profound transfor-
mation of domestic spaces. Even in working class and peasant households, living spaces
were now characterized by a division between dining and cooking spaces. Factories as well
as other working places established canteens where workers could spend their lunch-break.
These services provided easy access to food, providing a substantial contribution to coun-
ter malnutrition and food scarcity among the working class. Moreover, beginning in the
1950s, stricter health and safety rules were enforced across Europe, establishing a substan-
tial prohibition of having lunch on the shop floor (Fassino and Porporato 2016). While in
Western countries the creation of canteens was mainly left to the private initiative linked
to the political and legislative debates of the time and the developing context of industrial
relationships, in the Eastern block it was one of the main linchpins of the implementa-
tion of socialist policies. Starting in USSR in the 1930s, socialist regimes promoted the
construction of canteens as a way to increase the efficiency of production and at the same
time to provide workers with a place that combined a healthy diet with a political education
(Nérard 2014). However, while their construction had a central role in the economic, cul-
tural and urban development of countries (e.g. De Graaf 2014; Swope 2017), their condi-
tion and the poor quality of food they offered made them into a symbol of the Soviet failure
to keep promises of a brighter tomorrow (Nérard 2014). Turned into identity places for
socialism, the premises were abandoned after the political collapse of the socialist regimes,
and subsequently replaced by new canteens built under private initiative based on the mod-
els developed in Western Europe.
Moving on to the last thirty years, the forms of sociality led by post-war industrialization
experienced a progressive change, spurred by the acceleration of globalization (Appadurai
1996; Giddens 1990) and the transformation of political life (Hobsbawn 2013) and produc-
tion technology that passes under the rubric of ‘third industrial revolution’ (Rifkin 2011).
In particular, the recent past featured a flexibilization not only of working conditions, but of
the very daily practices of living (Standing 2011). As a reflex, European foodways changed
as well, making the practice of domestic cooking less and less common, except perhaps on
the weekends or other special occasions. Linked to this is the rise in the consumption of
pre-cooked meals and the consolidation of a new cuisine based on fast-food and street-food
(such as hamburgers, pizza, pasta, fish and chips, and ice cream) which, in turn, is tied to
the development of new cultural and physical spaces for socialization and the fruition of
food outside homes (Beriss and Sutton 2007).
The transformation also had an impact on eating practices while at work. In some coun-
tries, particularly in the Mediterranean, eating in canteens has suffered a decline, due to
the economic crisis, which has caused a general reduction in unnecessary expenditures.
Concurrently, however, the budget spent for the away-from-home has experienced a steady
increase, reaching record-high levels: in Britain, for example, it represents 40% of the total
food expenditure (Corvo 2015). The working-day-lunch eating practices therefore appear
13Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
today as significantly diversified, especially since a whole new array of food service pro-
viders—from food trucks to gourmet places selling food to be consumed in the office or
while walking during lunch-breaks—added themselves to the competition with traditional
canteens and restaurants. Similarly, taste has become highly diversified as well, with new
demands for traditional, local, regional, international, ethnic, vegetarian, vegan, organic
(and many more) foods being continuously and dynamically developed. In this shifting
landscape, the question about the future of the lunch-break is open, while awareness con-
cerning its role as a moment for wellbeing is still at stake.
3 Wellbeing at work, lunch‑breaks and the indicators explored
This paper investigates the role of the lunch-break in effectively contributing to the
enhancement of employees’ perceptions of wellbeing at work (Baptiste 2008).
The concept of wellbeing has often been at the center of the debate in social sciences,
also as a useful category to interpret economic phenomena (Bruno and Porta 2004; Carra
2010; Sen 1985). There is not an unanimously approved definition of wellbeing, as it refers
to a bundle of mixed and transient, shifting interactions between individual and collec-
tive health, wealth, and pleasure, the configuration of which may vary according to gender,
class, age, ethnicity, and individual choices (Andrews and Withey 1976; Brulé and Mag-
gino 2017; Derne 2016; Tov and Diner 2009; Ryff and Keyes 1995). While scholars have
looked at wellbeing as a form of social integration, contribution, acceptance and coherence
(Keyes 1998), in simple terms it can be described as a positive judgment towards life and
a sensation of feeling good (Diener et al 1997; Veenhoven 2008). The increasing popular-
ity of the scholarly idea of wellbeing appears to give account to shifts in the perceptions
about and experiences of individual agency and responsibility, and more broadly reflects a
change in the understanding of the role of individuals in society from subjects-as-citizens
to subjects-as-consumers (Sointu 2005), who have a normative obligation of choosing and
seeking wellbeing (Veenhoven 2008; La Placa et al 2013). In this respect, the importance
of the individual perception of wellbeing emerges as a driver of individual and collective
action, particularly more so in the professional field. In fact, the perception of wellbeing
directly involves the professional experience of the workers. As such, it is referred to as
‘wellbeing at work’ and has become a key area investigated by international institutions as
well as by companies in order to evaluate their economic and social performance (Stiglitz
2009), as a high perception of wellbeing at work is associated with high productivity and
commitment (Jain, et al 2009). As a consequence, in the past years employers have com-
mitted to improving their employees’ wellbeing at work, investing in initiatives aimed at
improving the services provided to them, in terms of workplace support (Gold et al. 2012;
Hannon et al 2012; Unger 1999).
Different factors influence the perception of wellbeing at work. Vandenberg et al (2002)
explore the role played by job stress, human resources and organizational development,
occupational safety and health, and integrated health promotion, while Warr (2005) sug-
gests that a key role is played by stress, that is generated by different dimensions that he
terms ‘opportunity for personal control’, ‘opportunity for skill use’, ‘externally generated
goals’, ‘variety’ (including skill variety and task variety), ‘environmental clarity’ (includ-
ing information on expected behaviors, task outcomes, and future in terms of absence of
job, ambiguity and security), ‘supportive supervision’, ’opportunity for interpersonal con-
tact’, and ‘valued social position’. Ryan and Deci (2001), in turn, link workplace wellbeing
13Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
to the workers’ capability, while Gavin and Mason (2004) argue that the perception of
wellbeing comes from workers having opportunities to spend their time not only earning
a good living but also feeling as if they are contributing to a ‘greater good’. In summary,
then, despite this lack of unanimous consensus upon the precise factors that underpin well-
being in the workplace, what appears central in influencing the perception of wellbeing at
work is a combination of personal perceptions of overall compliance with one’s work, and
personal satisfaction concerning one’s social life and health conditions.
In this context, where employers are looking to support the wellbeing of their employ-
ees, and food and nutrition are manifestly linked with the perception of wellbeing (Ares
et al 2014), the present article interrogates the role of the lunch-break in fostering wellbe-
ing at work. In so doing, it looks at subjective perception (Brulé and Maggino 2017) and,
in particular, at how the break and the foodways experienced by workers in ten European
countries answer to their needs in terms of nutrition, socialization, productivity and overall
satisfaction (Maggino 2017).
4 The Research “Eating at Work”
To shed light on the social indicator of ‘wellbeing at work’ through the lenses of food and
sociality during lunch-break, this article applies a qualitative analysis to the data collected
during the 2015 research “Eating at Work”, developed by the researchers of the University
of Gastronomic Sciences directed by Paolo Corvo, in collaboration with Eurest, Compass
Group and TNS. The research aimed to detail the social transformation of the role of can-
teens in Europe and was conducted through an extensive survey designed to investigate the
interrelation between working life and workers’ lunch-break preferences and routines. To
do so, it inquired into the features of workers’ lunch-breaks (length, time, location, form,
commensality, expenses, etc.), their dietary preferences (i.e. food and drinks most fre-
quently consumed), and their opinions and attitudes toward the social and health effects of
working-day lunches. Additional information to enable intra- and inter-national cross anal-
yses was also gathered, such as standard demographics (gender, age, social class, region),
type and size of business sector, working contract (full-, part-time or self-employed), and
degree of autonomy over timing and length of lunch-breaks. It was articulated to detail
themes such as productivity, sociality, empowerment, and matching between taste and ser-
vice provided.
The questionnaire was administered by TNS through their omnibus panel to a sample of
people in 10 different countries in November 2015, balanced in terms of gender and age on
the basis of the national dynamics. Overall, 9378 fully answered questionnaires were col-
lected, divided as follows: Czech Republic n = 680, France n = 1,338, Germany n = 1,377,
Ireland n = 669, Italy n = 693, Netherlands n = 1,210, Portugal n = 709, Sweden n = 677,
UK n = 1,355. Informants were of working age (between 18 and 65 years) and only those
who were actually employed on a full-time basis in the manufacturing or service sectors
completed the full set of questions.
Aggregated descriptive results of the research were published by Eurest (2016) in their
“European Eating at Work Report 2016”. In this paper, we offer an overview of the data
gathered during the research, followed by a depiction of the distinct situations emerging in
the different countries, hence proposing a general-level analysis of the overarching impact
of canteens on the wellbeing of employees’, together with a more detailed evaluation of
country-specific conditions.
13Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
5 The European Scenario of Eating at Work
This section provides a first overview of the most relevant data in an aggregated form,
depicting how, workers in Europe organize their lunch-breaks. All sample-wide mean val-
ues are weighted by the number of respondents from each country. Every table and figure
gives an account of the original question/prompt respondents had to address while filling
out the questionnaire.
The first set of data regards some basic features of workers’ lunch-break habits, namely
the number of times a week they take a break from work to consume lunch, the average
length of breaks, and the mean amount of money they spend on lunch. Table 1 collects this
information, showing the mean values for the whole sample and for each of the countries
of the study. Results show that wide inter-country differences exist in terms of lunch-break
length and expenditure. Workers in Italy, Spain and Portugal, indeed, tend to enjoy longer
lunch-breaks (averaging around 50 min), sensibly more so than their northern counterparts,
who dedicate to their working day meal an average of 30 min. The spectrum of money
spent on lunch is also wide, as it ranges from the average of 6 euros in Spain and Sweden
to the significantly cheaper meals of the Dutch and the Czech, who tend to spend less than
3 euros for their lunches. On the contrary, the number of times workers take a break to have
lunch in a week is relatively less variable across the sample, with every country’s score
being not very far from 4.
Workers, however, often lack the capacity to control the length and timing of breaks.
The survey suggests that in fact only 31% of the workers of the sample enjoy complete
freedom to choose their own lunch-break patterns, while a similar proportion (28%) report
not having any say in the timing and lengths of breaks, which are instead decided by others.
This result is even more evident in some countries, such as Czech Republic, Italy, Spain
and the UK, as shown by Table 2. In addition, workers with no control over breaks tend
to belong to the weakest social groups: lack of control is in fact more frequently reported
by women, young people, and by respondents belonging to the lower social classes. Fur-
thermore, the phenomenon is more diffused in the case of working activities organized
around shifts, like in factories, warehouses and call-centers. Figure 1 portrays a gender-
based comparison, highlighting how the percentage of women vis á vis men who have total
control over their breaks is in favor of men (27% vs 34%), whereas at the other end of the
spectrum the situation is capsized: 34% of females have no control, against 24% of males.
This calls for a reflection over the necessity to guarantee workers in weaker positions an
avenue for improving their working conditions and their work-life balance, in relation to
which addressing food-related issues and the host of socio-relational, communicational and
well-being considerations assumes central importance.
An item of the questionnaire specifically investigated the source of workers’ lunch food.
The data—shown in Table 3—inform that packing home-cooked meals to take to work is
the most common option in most of the countries of the study. The only exception is repre-
sented by France, where purchasing the meal at the staff restaurant or canteen has a slightly
higher incidence than taking it from home. Company canteens, anyway, play a major role
too, as they result the second preferred source of lunch food for all countries except Swe-
den, where workers tend to rely more on local off-site restaurants. Lastly, sandwich shops
and snack bars are also quite relevant, especially in sandwich-eating countries such as the
UK, Ireland, Italy and Germany.
The place of lunch food sourcing does not necessarily coincide with the place where
lunch is consumed. In this category, indeed, ‘home’ loses its primacy, even if major
13Table 1 Lunch-break timing, length and expenditure, reported by countries. Results are expressed as mean values
Sample CZ FR DE IR IT NL PT ES SW UK
On average, how many times a week do you stop working to take a lunch break? (mean 3.94 4.05 4.31 3.53 3.86 3.82 3.61 4.63 4.32 4.2 3.62
values)
How long, per day, do you usually take for your lunch break? (mean values, in minutes) 37.43 29.57 39.96 31.36 35.66 51.63 25.84 55.59 46.62 36.92 33.56
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
When you are at work, on average how much do you usually spend per day on food and 4.52 2.17 5.64 4.08 4.68 5.17 2.94 4.44 6.06 6.11 4.57
drink for your lunch? (mean values, in euros)
Author's personal copy
1313
Table 2 Degree of control over timing and length of breaks from work, reported by countries
How much control do you have over the length Sample CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
and timing of breaks during your working day?
No real control 28 39 28 23 27 31 29 24 32 19 33
Some control/flexibility 41 35 40 45 45 44 36 41 45 45 37
Complete freedom to choose 31 26 32 32 28 25 35 35 23 36 30
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Fig. 1 Degree of control over
timing and length of breaks from
work, reported by gender
country-specific differences emerge, as portrayed by Table 4. Overall, it is in the areas
designated to breaks within the workplace premises where most workers tend to consume
their lunch. Yet, this doesn’t hold true for all countries. In Mediterranean countries, for
example, workers have a more widespread habit of going home to have their lunch (e.g. in
Spain 52% of workers do so), while in the other countries this option is much less diffused.
On the contrary, northern countries feature higher percentages of respondents eating their
lunch at their work desk, with a peak in the UK where 28% of workers do not leave their
working space during lunch-breaks. The choice of sitting down at the company canteen to
have lunch is instead variedly diffused in our sample, ranging from the 28% of Portuguese
workers who do so, to the 5% of Spanish respondents.
Another important element of our research is linked to lunch-break sociality. Table 5
displays respondents’ habits of commensality, i.e. their usual company over lunch-time.
Unsurprisingly, in the same countries where going home for lunch is a consolidated habit,
family members are often indicated as commensals. Yet, the majority of the sample reports
having lunch with friends and colleagues from work as their customary experience. An
interesting datum, however, is embodied by the habit of eating one’s own lunch alone.
Overall, it is a condition that regards one third of the sample (31%), with the UK surging as
the least social country (41% of British workers eat their lunch alone).
A section of the questionnaire addressed the motivations for food purchasing and con-
sumption. It asked respondents to select, from a list of more than twenty-five items, the
four factors they deemed the most important when choosing where to buy their working-
day lunch from, and what food to eat. Results are contained in, respectively, Tables 6 and
7, which display only those factors which were selected by at least 10% of respondents in at
least one of the countries.
An overview of the data enables us to highlight that motivational factors at work when
choosing where to buy food show a moderate variance across countries. Nevertheless, it
is possible to distinguish some patterns. For example, economic factors such as price and
value-for-money appear to be the most taken into consideration by workers in almost every
country of the sample. Yet, in Portugal and Czech Republic—namely the least well-off
countries of the survey—the economic issue seems to have a higher relevance. On the con-
trary, the Swedish are the only ones who are motivated less by the economic elements than
by other factors, such as food quality and location convenience. Other important elements
at play, however, are the variety of the foods offered and the quickness of service.
The motivations behind the decision about what to eat for lunch, instead, feature a
greater inter-country variance. Sample-wide, taste is the most commonly selected item,
albeit in various proportion ranging from 61% of Czech workers to 31% of Spanish ones.
1313
Table 3 Place where lunch is usually sourced, reported by countries
On days that you are working, where do you Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
usually get your lunch?
From home 42 30 27 33 47 40 56 37 55 45 49
Staff restaurant or cafeteria 20 26 30 17 21 21 17 34 17 11 12
A local restaurant 5 9 4 3 2 7 1 11 4 14 1
A local sandwich shop/bakery or snack bar 5 4 6 7 9 6 3 2 3 – 8
An off-site shop or supermarket 4 4 2 5 5 3 3 1 – 5 6
On-site shop 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 4
A fast food outlet 2 1 1 2 1 1 – 2 – 2 3
An off-site coffee shop or café 2 2 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 2 2
Author's personal copy
Other 10 14 21 14 6 9 8 9 14 9 8
Not applicable/don’t usually have lunch 7 7 6 15 3 4 9 1 2 10 7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
P. Corvo et al.Table 4 Place where lunch is usually consumed, reported by countries
Where do you usually eat your lunch? Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
Workplace break/rest area 31 30 25 31 33 14 37 19 21 61 34
Home 21 10 27 18 9 36 12 30 52 7 14
Work desk 17 20 13 19 22 11 21 4 11 4 28
Staff restaurant or cafeteria 16 18 22 16 21 17 19 27 5 8 11
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Off-site restaurant/shop/café 7 15 5 6 6 11 2 12 5 12 3
Outside the work premises 5 4 5 5 5 8 6 6 3 2 4
‘On-the-go’/whilst travelling 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 4
Other 1 1 1 2 1 – 1 1 2 3 2
Author's personal copy
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1313
Table 5 Habits of lunch-break commensality, reported by countries
Who do you usually take your Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
lunch with?
Work friends/colleagues 55 57 55 55 59 47 65 50 35 72 49
Alone 31 35 31 34 37 23 29 25 25 21 44
Family 12 7 12 10 4 27 5 24 38 2 5
Friends from outside work 1 – 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 2 1
Other 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.Table 6 Motivations behind the decision of where to buy lunch food, reported by countries. Only factors scoring at least 10% in at least one of the countries are shown
When choosing where to buy your work-day lunch from, which 4 Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
factors are most important to you?
Price 42 56 44 33 46 41 34 52 41 34 44
Value for money 33 28 35 37 45 26 27 34 29 26 40
Quality/freshness of food 30 30 25 26 40 30 27 32 33 41 29
Convenience/close-by location 27 26 21 30 34 36 24 21 25 36 27
Variety/choice 21 19 28 20 19 21 16 19 21 17 26
Speed of service/length of queues 19 25 22 16 23 21 10 21 18 20 16
Provides freshly-cooked food 18 36 15 20 17 13 18 18 21 22 11
Good service/friendly staff 14 19 13 10 17 19 10 21 20 15 11
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Habit or routine 14 16 15 15 16 13 14 10 12 12 13
Who I am lunching with/social group 13 19 16 16 9 12 11 14 6 18 7
Portion Size 13 26 13 13 14 13 8 9 12 9 13
Author's personal copy
Good atmosphere/ambiance 11 19 13 10 4 15 11 16 14 9 7
Provides ‘grab-and-go’ food that I can take away 10 7 13 10 10 13 6 6 9 13 12
Provides healthy options/food that helps me stick to my diet or 10 7 4 10 17 14 12 13 14 8 9
healthy eating plan
Special offers/meal deals 10 6 10 8 10 9 8 14 11 3 17
Comfortable sit-down facilities where I can relax 8 12 3 9 8 13 11 10 5 4 8
1313
Table 7 Motivations behind the decision of what food to eat for lunch, reported by countries. Only factors scoring at least 10% in at least one of the countries are shown
When choosing what to eat for your lunch, Sample (%) Cz(%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
which 4 factors are most important to you?
Taste 42 60 40 41 49 37 41 37 31 44 46
Price 41 61 39 33 41 41 35 51 38 44 43
Value for money 35 29 42 38 43 22 28 30 37 34 42
Quality/freshness of food 35 46 34 28 39 40 29 43 34 45 30
Healthiness 27 17 21 27 34 25 32 38 35 21 23
Portion sizes 18 35 17 20 16 17 13 14 18 18 20
Daily budget 18 20 24 12 20 19 16 25 21 11 18
Appearance/presentation 13 18 13 11 12 14 14 23 15 12 10
Can be eaten on the go/taken back to my desk 13 12 13 17 18 11 10 4 7 14 18
Natural/simple ingredients 13 8 16 13 10 22 9 13 20 11 9
Special offers/meal deals 11 13 12 7 11 11 6 16 12 8 13
Author's personal copy
Calorie content 9 5 7 10 13 11 10 6 10 5 9
Seasonal ingredients 8 4 13 10 3 19 5 5 12 4 4
Fat content 7 5 8 7 7 11 6 10 9 3 8
Provides a healthy energy boost 7 6 5 8 13 9 6 2 6 10 8
Try something new/different 7 10 8 5 5 11 5 8 7 7 7
Chef’s recommendation/the ’daily special’ 7 5 7 13 4 6 6 11 6 7 3
P. Corvo et al.Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Once again, price is more an issue in Portugal and Czech Republic, while the healthy-food-
looking countries appear to be Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Ireland. Spain also
seems to have a taste for naturalness and simplicity, together with Italy, whose workers,
in addition, are the most interested in the seasonality of ingredients. As per other country-
specific considerations related to food choice motivations, these are postponed to the fol-
lowing sections.
The perceived effects of the lunch-break were also investigated. More precisely,
respondents were asked to express their degree of agreement to a battery of four state-
ments affirming that: leaving the workspace for lunch enhances the working performance
in the afternoon; the energy level of the worker drops in the afternoon; chatting with col-
leagues over lunch is a positive element to build stronger teams; meeting colleagues over
lunch is desirable. The agreement was expressed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
“1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”, with 3 as the neutral score. Table 8 shows
the mean values of agreement recorded in the ten countries. In general, all four statements
record a marginally more than neutral level of agreement, with a slightly more pronounced
consensus about the team-building usefulness of chatting with colleagues over lunch. In
the southern Mediterranean countries, and in the UK, workers perceive more strongly the
beneficial effects of leaving the workspace for lunch, whereas the Netherlands and Sweden
are both the most ‘energetic’ countries—i.e. those where the afternoon energy drop is less
commonly felt by workers—and, together with Germany, the least ‘sociable’ countries, in
that workers’ desire to meet colleagues over lunch more often is under-average.
To complete the overview of the features of European workers’ lunch-breaks, we
report here the aggregated results of the section of the questionnaire that inquired into the
lunch-time dietary preferences of respondents. These were required to select from a list of
twenty-seven food groups the five items that they most liked to eat while at work. The out-
come portrays a quite detailed picture of working day diets in the ten countries surveyed,
which is displayed in Table 9. As expected, a great variability of diets is detected, as the
natural reflection of the highly differentiated nutritional customs and styles of European
citizens.
Given this high variability, and the space limit of the present article, the analysis of
country-specific diet patterns will be postponed to the following sections. What we will
offer here—for its useful cross-sectionality—is instead an analytical comparison of diet
structure based not on the place of provenance of the interviewees, but on age-based differ-
ences. Figure 2 looks at the results of the dietary survey through a generational lens, jux-
taposing the choices of the three generational cohorts included in the study (Baby boom-
ers, Generation X and Millennials) for what regards the preferences they expressed about
a selection of food groups, conveniently divided into three macro-groups, namely ‘Tradi-
tional Meals’, ‘Snacks and Fast Food’, and ‘Ethnic and Trendy Food’.
Much research takes generations as units of analysis to understand food consumption
trajectories. Millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) are deemed to express a
stronger preference towards cheap and convenient food in comparison to the previous gen-
erations (Corvo 2015). But, at the same time, they are also more interested in (and subse-
quently willing to pay more for) food with specific attributes, such as freshness and healthi-
ness, organic/natural, ethnic and specialty food (Saulo 2016; Yoon and Chung 2018). As
per the health and nutritional aspects, then, younger people may be more attentive to food
trends, while they are concurrently more likely to adopt an unbalanced and unhealthy diet
regimen, strongly relying on high-processed foods rich in fats, salt and sugars (Saulo 2016).
By comparing this cohort with their older colleagues in the survey—i.e. Baby Boomers
(born 1946–1964) and Generation X (born 1964–1980)—we find that several elements
1313
Table 8 Perceived effects of the lunch-break, reported by countries. Results are shown as mean values. Responses are expressed as degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
Sample CZ FR DE IR IT NL PT ES SW UK
Please indicate your level of agreement with the I find that when I leave my workspace for lunch, 3.3 2.97 3.19 3.13 3.6 3.52 3.18 3.59 3.45 3.17 3.44
following statements I am able to work better when I return
I often feel a drop in energy levels during the 3.28 3.47 3.16 3.4 3.57 3.4 2.96 3.2 3.31 3 3.46
afternoon
Regularly chatting with colleagues over lunch 3.62 3.56 3.54 3.58 3.8 3.62 3.51 3.98 3.7 3.74 3.51
helps build stronger teams
I wish I could meet with colleagues over lunch 3.07 3.17 3.02 2.88 3.2 3.17 2.93 3.43 3.29 2.9 3.04
Author's personal copy
more often
P. Corvo et al.Table 9 Dietary preferences for lunch on working days, reported by countries
Which 5 of these foods do you most like to eat for lunch Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
whilst at work?
Cold sandwiches/wraps/subs 39 34 31 27 59 38 47 25 32 21 63
Fruit and fruit products (e.g. compote) 27 20 29 28 25 28 28 37 30 13 27
Chicken based meals (Roast/BBQ/Fried etc.) 24 40 23 20 23 16 9 38 21 51 17
Pasta based meals (Carbonara/lasagne/Gnocchi etc.) 24 30 28 28 14 28 11 22 25 46 15
Healthy snacks (cereal bars/vegetables sticks/dried fruit) 23 24 19 18 30 27 22 24 32 15 26
Soups and Stews 23 35 7 22 36 9 27 36 14 20 29
Healthy meals (low salt/sugar/calorie/sugar) 22 21 21 16 24 26 25 36 29 17 17
Dairy based desserts (Yogurts/Ice cream/Cheese cakes) 20 16 28 21 14 19 24 15 27 7 19
Vegetarian Salads (Green/Greek/Pasta based) 19 12 23 17 16 33 17 20 31 16 14
Protein Salads (incl. Meat/fish in salads) 19 12 22 23 19 17 12 22 15 36 17
Cold snacks (Chocolate/potato chips/popcorn/) 17 15 13 11 26 17 7 9 18 8 37
Cake based desserts (Cakes/Brownies/Cupcakes) 17 23 27 11 16 21 6 18 14 8 21
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Hot Sandwiches/wraps/subs 17 6 11 13 37 21 18 10 20 10 28
Red meat based meal (Grilled meats/Pork/Ribs) 17 25 22 25 13 10 5 30 12 29 7
Rice based dishes (Fried Rice/Paella/Beans & Rice etc.) 15 25 18 17 11 18 8 13 24 14 8
Hot snacks (Croquettes/Churro/Pasty/quesadilla etc.) 14 12 14 9 7 26 28 14 16 – 15
Author's personal copy
Fast Food (Burgers/Fried Chicken/Kebab/Fish & chips) 14 9 16 14 14 8 12 17 12 18 19
Fish/seafood based meals (Tuna/Crab cakes/mussels) 14 17 16 8 11 10 8 25 13 31 7
Pastry based meals (Pizza/tarts/quiche/pies etc.) 13 7 14 19 7 17 8 15 9 11 14
Deli based meals (Made to order food/Charcuterie/Salads) 12 21 9 10 22 18 7 11 12 7 8
Noodle based dishes (Chinese/Thai/Japanese etc.) 12 18 9 27% 10 3 7 7 5 17 10
Vegetarian meals (Grain/vegetable/meat replacements) 9 3 7 13 7 16 8 7 11 12 8
Curry (e.g. Indian/Thai/Malaysia/Caribbean) 8 7 7 11 17 3 3 4 2 19 9
Handheld Street Food (Burritos/Pies/bagels/ calzone) 8 7 5 16 6 21 3 2 5 10 7
13Table 9 (continued)
Which 5 of these foods do you most like to eat for lunch Sample (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%)
whilst at work?
13
Sharing plates (Nachos/Tapas/Meze/Antipasta) 6 8 9 5 2 11 5 7 10 4 4
Free from foods meals (Gluten free/nut free etc.) 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 6
Dumpling based meals 4 23 3 4 1 7 2 2 – 4 2
None of these 12 5 13 12 6 6 28 6 11 10 9
Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
Fig. 2 Dietary preferences
regarding 3 macro-groups of
food, reported by generational
cohort
13Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
stressed by research are confirmed. Millennials, in fact, appear to indulge more frequently
in unhealthy and convenient foods, such as snacks, sweets, sandwiches and other fast foods,
while they also score higher on those items referring to a peculiar food trend, like ‘free
from’ foods (free from gluten, free from nuts, etc.), ethnic, specialty or street food. In the
same vein, they consume less red meat than their predecessors (consumption of red meat
is increasingly being blamed for its health and environmentally negative impacts). On the
other hand, Baby Boomers’ workday diets appear to be based on more traditional patterns
which, all in all, manifest a clearer equilibrium between nutrients. They tend to eat more
vegetable-based dishes (salads, soups), more fruit, more fish, and more meat, while they
indulge less on snacks, sweets and sandwiches.
In general terms, then, the European scenario suggests that the lunch-break is a social
field whose spatial and temporal boundaries are often determined by the employers but
also that, within those limits, spaces for workers to exercise their agency seem to emerge.
Nonetheless, a study of the social elements of workers’ lunch-breaks cannot afford to over-
look the specific ways in which these are perceived and experienced in each country, which
are therefore the topic of the following sections.
5.1 Eating at Work in Czech Republic
The most striking feature of Czech workers’ food consumption routines is the modest
amount of time they devote to the lunch-break. On average, they spend only 29.5 min eat-
ing lunch, and even if they enjoy complete control over lunch-breaks, the score rises no
higher than 34 min. Workers from the lowest social classes, in addition, suffer from an even
worse condition: their average time allocation for lunch is just 25.7 min.
Given such constrictions, it comes as no surprise that the speed of service and the length
of queues are evaluated as strategic elements when choosing where to buy food. In the
sample, indeed, 25% take into account quick service features when purchasing their lunch,
vis-à-vis an average among the European countries of the survey of 19%. Similarly, escap-
ing the office for lunch is probably a tough task for many Czech workers. Half of the sur-
veyed workers, in fact, have lunch at or very close to their working environment, whether
at their desk (20%) or in break/rest areas (30%). In fact, going home for lunch characterizes
only a minority of the sample (10%). Nevertheless, a higher-than-average proportion of
interviewees (15% vs an EU average of 7%) report the habit of having lunch at a local high-
street restaurant and evaluate socialization elements when choosing where to purchase food
(19% against a EU mean of 13%).
Czech employees, in particular males, are interested in caterers that serve large quanti-
ties of food. This criterion of choice is taken into account by 26% of the sample, double the
average of the other countries of the survey.
Diet patterns, in addition, are peculiar. Low levels of vegetables, fruit and other healthy
options are registered, while meat-based dishes, stews and charcuterie are widely con-
sumed. Carbs are also not lacking, since many report frequent consumption of rice and
pasta, precisely—and surprisingly—more than Italians (30% in Czech Republic against
28% in Italy). To complete the picture, however, it is relevant to say that below-than-aver-
age frequency of fast food and sandwich consumption is registered.
Although particularly sought after by Czechs, an energy-dense and speed-dominated
lunch regime does not appear to help them work better: against an EU average of 47%,
indeed, Czech workers who recognize a drop in energy during post-meridian hours are
57% of the sample.
13Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
5.2 Eating at Work in France
French food culture and tradition is acknowledged as one of the most influential in the
world. Its peculiarity is also reflected in workers’ daily dietary patterns. From a gastro-
nomic point of view, France can be seen as the junction—or trait d’union—between the
Mediterranean area and continental Europe. French workers, in fact, tend to consume
less meat than their northern and eastern neighbors, yet more than those of Mediter-
ranean countries; in turn, vegetable consumption is lower than in the latter, but higher
than in continental and northern Europe. As an additional insight, the survey registers
consumption levels of fish and fruit higher than the EU average. Plus, sandwiches are
eaten with moderation, while fast food consumption is quite frequent, even if less than
in other countries like the UK and Sweden, and most prominently among younger gen-
erations. The last and most prominent dietary characteristic is the passion of French
people for desserts. An overwhelming majority of respondents report consumption of
desserts on a daily basis—precisely 70% of the sample, versus an EU average of 56%—
with women more prone to choose cream and yogurt-based desserts, and men keener to
indulge in cakes and tarts.
The French, more than other Europeans, are used to getting their workday food from
staff restaurants or canteens (it is a custom of 30% of French respondents, against an
average of 20% in the whole sample). On the other hand, the habit of taking food from
home is less common (27% vs 42%). What results, then, is that the biggest proportion
of workers also have lunch at the workplace, whether in the company-provided canteen
(22%, mostly men) or in break/rest areas (25%, mostly women). Lastly, a significant
portion (27%) of respondents go home for lunch, which represents another intermediate
value between northern and southern countries. As a consequence, social eating is the
norm for most French respondents, 55% of whom have lunch together with colleagues.
Nevertheless, more than one third of workers are alone during lunchtime.
If we look at the criteria French workers adopt when choosing where to purchase
their food and what to eat, it is revealed that they depend on gender and some particular
elements. Men, indeed, appear to appreciate the possibility of selecting their meal from
an ample variety of choices, while women tend to look for natural ingredients, sim-
ple flavors and seasonality. Elements of healthiness of food and comfortableness of the
venue, on the contrary, seem to be less important for both males and females compared
to other EU countries surveyed. Another feature that is—surprisingly—less sought after
by French workers, with respect to other countries’ workers, is the quality of food. The
data we possess does not allow for an unequivocal interpretation of such an indication,
yet a hypothesis can be put forward: considering that the quality of food preparations is
rather widespread in France, and bearing in mind that it is renowned that French con-
sumers are rather expert and demanding regarding food, we must consider quality not
as irrelevant, but rather as taken for granted as consumers look for other more specific
characteristics of food to satisfy their palates. In addition, the French tend to spend a
little more than the European average for their daily food needs. With a mean of 6.29
euros a day spent on food places, France is in 3 rd position among the European countries
surveyed. When choosing the place to eat and the food to buy, besides price—whose
relevance as a guiding parameter is anyway on the average of the other countries—the
French start reflecting upon budgetary issues: they want to maximize their utility given
their budget constraints and obtain the best value for money. All in all, the French are
sophisticated food consumers, who know what they want and are keen to spend a little
13Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
more for food that satisfies them. This also reverberates in their afternoon working per-
formances, since survey respondents who do not feel an energy drop in post-meridian
hours make up 29% of the sample, making France the 3rd best performing country
regarding this entry in the whole survey.
5.3 Eating at Work in Germany
Among the European survey, Germany is the country where workers not used to taking a
break to have lunch are most commonly found. The average worker, indeed, stops working
3.5 times a week, and only 58% of the interviewees declare stopping every day for lunch
purposes. The Germans who never stop to take a lunch-break sum up to 12%: a figure that
records the highest value among the whole international sample (interestingly, the same
result for this entry is also found in Italy). A proportion of 8% of German workers report
eating while working, but even if they halt their activities to have lunch, their breaks are
rather short: with an average of 31.3 min, German lunch-breaks are the 3rd shortest in
the sample, followed by the Netherlands and Czech Republic. Subsequently, exactly half
of respondents are used to taking their lunch within their working environment, whether
at their desk (19%) or in the office rest area (31%). This custom is more diffused among
young people, for whom canteens are less attractive, and who prefer to stay close to their
work desks. That 16% of population that opts for the staff canteen, and that 6% segment
that chooses an off-site restaurant as the venue for lunch, are then composed to a great
extent by elder workers. Plus, only 18% of workers go home for lunch (against an EU aver-
age of 21%), among which, in particular, more women than men. Thus, a high percentage
of workers usually eat alone (34%), while slightly more than half the sample (55%) gather
with colleagues over lunch.
Whatever the place of eating, they are less keen to source their food from the staff res-
taurant, whereas local food shops, sandwich places, bakeries and supermarkets that offer
grab-and-go food easily taken back to the office are chosen quite frequently. Still, though,
social group/sociality elements are given significant value in the decisional process of
where and what to eat, despite the need to do it quickly and comfortably. German workers’
diets appear to be based on a combination of meat (especially red meat) and carbohydrates,
such as pasta and pizza (the frequency of pizza consumption is higher than in Italy: 19% in
Germany vs. 17% in Italy vs. 13% as the EU average). Peculiar food characteristics are also
given value: seasonal ingredients or vegetarian food are fairly sought after, but ethnic food
is the consolidated object of desire in Germany, especially if compared to other countries:
Asian food, curries and street food is indeed a significant part of the dietary routine of Ger-
man workers. On the other hand, the consumption of sandwiches, snacks and fish registers
lower-than-average values, while fast food options are in line with the EU average.
The picture deriving from the survey describes German workers as pragmatic consum-
ers. They know what type of food they want (special foods, seasonal, organic, vegetarian,
sustainable) and they give value to the people they eat with, but they have to cope with
economic and (above all) time restraints. They are thus more interested in value-for-money
rather than price; they care less about the atmosphere or the service quality of the place
and look for convenience when buying food: they prefer food items that can be brought
back to the office, they enjoy routine and privilege nearby venues, they look for a kind of
satisfaction that fits work requirements. Many Germans do not perceive the usefulness of
leaving their workspace for lunch, yet the problem of afternoon fatigue and energy drop is
significantly diffused.
13Author's personal copy
Eating at Work: The Role of the Lunch-Break and Canteens for…
5.4 Eating at Work in Ireland
Even though it can be considered a ‘friendly’ country (for example 70% of respondents agree
that chatting with colleagues over lunch is useful in building stronger teams, and 39% of the
sample would like to meet colleagues more often than they actually do), Irish workers suffer
from a shortage of time to dedicate to lunch. Their average lunch-break lasts only 35.6 min,
and even less for most women and elder workers. Subsequently, even if most Irish are prone to
acknowledge that leaving the workspace for lunch is beneficial for preventing excessive after-
noon fatigue, the majority choose to eat within the work environment, whether at their desk
(22%) or in an office rest area (33%). Provided canteen services are also quite used, especially
by men, while women tend to eat closer to their desks. Only a small percentage opt for a high-
street restaurant (6%), and even less diffused, if compared to other European countries, is the
custom to return home for lunch (9% vs. an EU average of 21%). Many Irish workers, then,
end up eating alone (37%). Yet, if we exclude that small proportion having lunch with the fam-
ily, the remainder is accustomed to spending time with colleagues during lunch-breaks.
The average expenditure for workday food is quite high (6.21 euros a day, which is more
than in the UK or Germany, for instance), and a large majority (70%) of workers do not
receive any form of subsidy to purchase food, thus explaining why many rely on sandwiches
or supermarket food for their lunch needs, especially young people. Interestingly, taking food
from home is a very widespread habit (47% of the sample, 5 points higher than the European
average), and this proportion enlarges as age increases. This seems to testify that once they get
the chance to live a more organized family life, Irish workers tend to prefer bringing food from
home, rather than purchasing it at the workplace.
The resulting daily diet consequently assumes characteristics of imbalance towards ‘quick’
foods, which in many cases are also nutritionally inadequate, for they are high in carbs, salt
and sugar. Consumption of sandwiches (both cold and hot), fast food and deli food is sig-
nificantly higher than the European average, as is that of snacks. Among these, high scores
are recorded for both ‘traditional’ snacks (chips, popcorn, chocolate, etc.), and for those that
fall under the (not uncontroversial) label of ‘healthy snacks’, such as cereal bars or dried fruit
mixes. This is due to the fact that, despite the nutritionally poor regimen many Irish risk to
adopt, they express a marked (and probably increasing) interest in healthy food. Healthy
sources of energy, low calories, low sugar content and availability of nutritional information
are indeed all relevant elements that drive the choice of where and what to eat on a daily basis.
In addition, this appears to be a phenomenon affecting more women than men. Female work-
ers, at the same time, are those who suffer from greater time scarcity for their lunch routines.
The effects of such lunch routines on the afternoon energy drop are evident: 63% of Irish
workers admit they find working in the afternoon more difficult (against an EU average of
47%), and the proportion of individuals who report not suffering from this problem is as low as
17%, 6 points below the EU mean value. What can be concluded is that, as per workday lunch
patterns, Ireland appears to be a country that features an unbalanced dietary model, yet that is
all the time more attentive to claims of food healthiness, especially the female population.
5.5 Eating at Work in Italy
What is most evident in Italian lunch-break patterns is the habit of going back home
to eat, which characterizes the lives of 36% of the sample, a proportion significantly
larger than the EU average (21%) and the second highest in the Pan European sample
after Spain. Secondly, lunch-break duration—as in all Latin countries of the survey—is
13Author's personal copy
P. Corvo et al.
markedly longer than the average: Italians spend a mean of 51.6 min for the midday
meal, against an EU average of 37.4 min, following Portugal as the longest lunch-break
registered in the survey. Even if they do not reach family however, Italians dislike eating
alone (only 23% of the sample do so; the second lowest record of the survey), and very
much appreciate the relieving effect of leaving their work premises during mealtime.
Only 25% (vs. an EU average of 48%) remain within their working area to have lunch,
whether at their desks or in the office rest area. If they do not choose to go home, they
tend to purchase their food from multiple sources and eat it in various places.
Despite the relatively longer lunch-breaks they enjoy, many workers face time and
budget restraints (the part of the sample, for example, who declare never stopping work
for lunch is 12%: a European record, shared with Germany), so they have to reconcile such
dimensions with their food preferences. Plus, a large percentage of workers receive a lunch-
eon voucher that can be spent in many high-street food shops and restaurants, among which
they can choose. As a result, the criteria Italians adopt when deciding where and what to
eat move along a double binary. They appear stretched between the need to maximize con-
venience and fit within their daily budget, and the desire to exercise their expertise as con-
sumers, looking for food that meets their expectations. A close-by location, grab-and-go
options and speed of service are then positively valued; but also, the characteristics of the
venue are taken into account, such as good service, a nice atmosphere, friendly staff and
a comfortable facility in which to relax, which are very sought-after elements. As per the
food, rather than value-for-money, Italians positively evaluate the criteria of food quality
and freshness, as well as many other more specific features, like healthiness, ‘naturalness’
and simplicity, availability of vegetarian food (in reality, more popular among women),
low-calorie and low-fat food, seasonal, organic, sustainable and locally sourced food.
Among the Pan European sample, Italians appear as the most attentive consumers, being
significantly interested in specific food properties like the ones listed above. Subsequently,
their average midday diet is a combination of a Mediterranean style (which represents the
basis of the Italian diet), with elements of convenience, along with a search for intrinsic
food properties. High consumption frequencies of pasta, rice and pizza are detectable (even
if the share of Italians declaring to frequently eat pasta for lunch occupies only the 3rd
position in the European sample, ex aequo with France and Germany), together with salads
and other vegetable-based dishes. Dishes deemed to have healthy characteristics are also
frequently consumed, especially by women, as well as seasonal, organic and short chain
foods, while meat-based dishes register below-than-average scores. To address conveni-
ence issues, though, and despite opting for fast food less than other countries, Italians eat
a lot of sandwiches (especially hot sandwiches and panini) and snacks. Among the latter,
traditional hot snacks and hand-held street food are preferred. Besides pizza, each region of
Italy has a host of traditional street foods that perfectly fit the need of a working day quick
lunch. However, ethnic snacks, as results from the survey, have not yet penetrated this
market and are not frequently consumed by Italians. Lastly, an inclination towards eating
desserts and sweet snacks is also detectable, more prominently among the female popula-
tion. In conclusion, the unique traits of Italian consumers—together with the fact that 21%
of them receive a daily luncheon voucher—cause (and enable) them to choose where and
what to eat for lunch from the vast offer of the market. Quality food is quite easily acces-
sible in Italy, since restaurants and food shops with good standards and accessible prices
are widespread in most places. This puts company restaurants and canteens in the position
of having to face huge competition; not only with this market, but also with families, which
many Italians are used to going back to for lunch.
13You can also read
