GERP case study 2

Option 1: Provide a variety of packaged, pre-made meals from a local supplier. These meals are convenient, lower cost than other options and easy to distribute, but they come with plastic packaging for each meal.

Summary: This option is convenient and cost-effective, and sources from a local supplier, however, the plastic packaging is not environmentally friendly. This is not the best option for the environment.

Option 2: Offer a buffet-style lunch where attendees can serve themselves. The food will be prepared in bulk and served in large, reusable containers. However, some single-use plastic items (e.g., plastic utensils) will be required for convenience. This option has a mid-range price.

Summary: The buffet option reduces packaging waste and uses reusable containers, which is better for the environment. However, it still requires plastic utensils, which negatively impacts sustainability. It’s a more balanced choice between convenience and environmental responsibility and is sitting in the middle as far as cost considerations.

Option 3: Partner with a local farm-to-table caterer who specializes in sustainable, plant-based meals. While the meals are prepared using seasonal, locally sourced ingredients and are packaged in compostable materials, the cost of this option is higher than the others.

Summary: This option is the most sustainable, with locally sourced ingredients and compostable packaging. However, the higher cost may be a barrier. This choice shows strong environmental responsibility but will be dependent on the budget.

Option 3 is the most environmentally friendly choice, but it should be considered carefully based on the budget. If Dominic can justify the extra cost, this would be the best choice for the environment. 

Option 1: Ask the proponents to explain how they will reduce food waste and manage packaging disposal.

Summary: This question focuses on food waste and packaging disposal, which are important for sustainability. However, it may not be enough to ensure proponents consider other environmentally friendly practices, such as sourcing ingredients or using compostable materials.

Option 2: Ask the proponents how their catering services will use environmentally friendly practices. Ask for details on how they will use compostable materials and source food locally. Don’t ask proponents for details on waste management practices.

Summary: This option focuses on key sustainability practices like compostable materials and local sourcing, which are very important. However, not asking about waste management means missing an opportunity to ensure the vendor addresses waste.

Option 3: Ask proponents to outline their approach to sustainability in catering, including energy and water use reduction. Ask for details on waste management and sourcing local food and organic ingredients.

Summary: This question covers all aspects of sustainability, including energy, water, waste, and sourcing. It’s a thorough approach and ensures comprehensive sustainability but may not be necessary for all cases. It would also be more difficult to evaluate.

Option 3 is the most comprehensive and covers the full scope of sustainability. It aligns with Dominic’s goal of ensuring a sustainable catering process and encourages vendors to think broadly about their practices. 

Option 1: Assign 15% of the evaluation points to the sustainability of the catering services. This would highlight sustainability in the decision-making process. However, this may reduce the focus on other important factors like cost and service quality. This will require a legal review as well.

Summary: This option places strong emphasis on sustainability, but it could reduce focus on cost and quality, which are also important. It might also slow down the process due to the legal review requirement. This approach is ideal if sustainability is the most important factor. 

Option 2: Assign 10% of the points to sustainability, giving more weight to the cost and overall quality of the catering service. This approach balances environmental concerns with other important factors. This won’t require a legal review as it is only 10% of the overall score.

Summary: This option balances sustainability with cost and quality, which is practical. It ensures environmental concerns are considered but doesn’t overshadow other factors. Note that a 10% weighting may not be enough to ensure the best proponent is chosen. Regardless, it’s the most balanced choice and easier to implement without legal hurdles. 

Option 2 strikes the best balance between sustainability and other important factors like cost and quality. It allows Dominic to consider environmental factors without making them the only focus, ensuring a well-rounded decision-making process.