Plant-Based Diet-Shift Initiative Case Studies: Coolfood

Editorial Note

This report was produced by Rethink Priorities between July 2024 and September 2024. The project was commissioned and supported by an anonymous funder, which does not necessarily endorse our conclusions.

The report is part of a series of six case studies of diet-shift initiatives towards a more plant-based food system. These cases were chosen from a long list to create a portfolio of cases that demonstrated variety in terms of geographic reach, causal mechanisms, institutions and actors involved, and novelty of approaches.

We have tried to flag major sources of uncertainty in the report and are open to revising our views as more information becomes available.

Coolfood

Introduction

Food service institutions, which accounted for approximately 56% of total food expenditures in the United States in 2022, are pivotal in shaping dietary habits and promoting more sustainable food choices (ERS, 2022 in Pollicino et al., 2024). Restaurants, canteens, and cafés have an opportunity to influence consumers’ eating habits on a large scale by offering plant-based, environmentally friendly dishes, which not only reduce the demand for animal-based options, but may also inspire changes in retail sales and in-home consumption (Kerslake et al., 2022 in Pollicino et al., 2024, p. 12). This potential ripple effect underscores the significant potential of these institutions to drive widespread change in food consumption patterns.

This case study examines the effort of Coolfood, an initiative of World Resources Institute, which leverages the scale and reach of the food service sector to serve millions of healthier and lower-carbon meals each day. The case highlights the role that collecting data—even imperfect data—can play in acting as a catalyst for action from food service providers. An important lesson drawn here is that compiling the best evidence from academic studies needs to be paired with effective stakeholder engagement and communication to ensure that recommendations are implemented effectively. We spoke with staff at the World Resources Institute and conducted online searches to gather the information included in this report.

Problem Profile

The Coolfood initiative is driven by the urgent need to meet the demands of a growing population while addressing a global food system responsible for approximately one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions (Crippa et al., 2021). WRI researchers identified changing consumption patterns, with a particular focus on what they view as excessive consumption of animal-based products in high-consumption regions, as a key pillar for addressing this challenge (Searchinger et al., 2018).

Coolfood wants to take up the opportunity presented by the apparent consumer demand for more environmentally friendly protein-rich foods, according to surveys (ProVeg International, 2022 in Pollicino et al., 2024). Given that plant-based foods have a significantly lower climate impact than animal-based ones (see figure below), increasing consumption of plant-based foods emerges as a key strategy in combating the climate crisis. This comes in addition to co-benefits in human health and animal welfare. This case study illustrates Coolfood’s efforts to spearhead this transformative change in the food service sector.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions per nutritional unit of various foods

Notes: This figure, based on data provided by Coolfood for this report, presents median greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints per nutritional unit (kg CO2e per 100 g protein or per L). To maximize comparability across studies, values reflect cradle-to-processing gate emissions where possible. Beef values represent a weighted average accounting for the share of global beef production from beef vs. dairy herds using data from FAO GLEAM (2022). Values for shrimp and prawns and finfish are for farmed rather than wild caught varieties. The median GHG footprint for nuts is negative due to carbon sequestration from nut trees. “Many nut producers are carbon negative – even after accounting for other emissions and transport. This is because today, tree nuts are expanding onto cropland, removing CO2 from the air” (Ritchie, 2020). Sources: Poore & Nemecek (2018) for most foods, Santo et al. (2020) for plant-based meat, Ramsing et al. (2023) for milk comparisons. Provided by Coolfood for this report.

Initiative Overview

Coolfood’s mission is based on an understanding that “catalyzing behavior change at the speed and magnitude required must start with the decisions of companies, governments and other institutions” (Pollicino et al., 2024, p. 3) rather than with individuals. Coolfood was motivated by research showing that people’s decisions when eating out are heavily influenced by factors such as menu design and dish descriptions (Pollicino et al., 2024). Coolfood leverages its expertise in environmental research, behavioral science, and consumer marketing with the aim to provide a comprehensive, one-stop solution that empowers the food service industry to translate its sustainability ambitions into impactful actions.

Coolfood helps institutions follow a target, measure, act approach. The Coolfood Pledge is a target that commits signatories to collectively reducing their food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25% by 2030 (and by 38% per calorie), relative to a baseline year^[1] “—a level of ambition in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement” (Waite et al., 2019). Coolfood then helps signatories to measure the climate impacts of their food procurement, relying on a custom-built Coolfood Calculator that helps institutions input their food purchases (by weight) and get an estimate for the impacts of their procurement in terms of land use, GHG emissions, and calories. Coolfood also created a Coolfood Meals label in 2020. The carbon footprint of a meal served by a food service institution is calculated based on the ingredient list. If the footprint falls below thresholds set by WRI (e.g., 3.81 kg CO₂e/meal for lunches and dinners in the USA. See more in their technical note), the institution is approved to use the label and market their meal as “low-carbon”. The idea is that being able to identify and promote these meals on menus will lead to more uptake of them. Coolfood then provides guidance on what changes food providers can make to purchases and food service to reduce their food-related emissions.

The Coolfood Pledge 2022 report records more than 60 food service providers as signatories, including 31 who signed up when the program was first started. Members span a range of food service providers from catering companies like Aramark, universities like Harvard and New York University, cities like New York and Toronto, global companies like IKEA, and the World Bank, as well as hospitals and medical centers across the USA, Canada, and Europe.

Strategies and Actions

Coolfood aims to encourage institutions to sign up, get involved, and make progress by offering resources that describe how to put research into action, establishing strategic partnerships, and an active communications strategy.

Starting in 2016, World Resources Institute’s Better Buying Lab started investigating what strategies seemed to be effective at promoting sales and consumption of plant-based foods. Their early findings identified four kinds of language to avoid and three to embrace to help restaurants and the food industry boost sales of plant-based menu items (Wise & Vennard, 2019). Building on this, a “Playbook for Guiding Diners toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service” (Attwood et al., 2020) was launched. Note that WRI often uses the term “plant-rich”, which they define as “a diet in which plant-based food makes up the majority of total amount consumed but may allow small amounts of animal products, including ruminant meat, to be eaten. The terms plant-forward diet and sustainable diet are also commonly used to refer to the same pattern of eating” (Pollicino et al., 2024). WRI argues that terms like “meat-free” and “vegetarian” are unappealing, and indulgent language should be on used on menus to describe plant-rich dishes (Pollicino et al., 2024).

In many cases, institutions increase purchases of plant-based foods and decrease purchases of animal-based foods as part of implementing techniques from the Playbook and as part of meeting their Coolfood Pledge; however, this is not a given, as will be discussed in the challenges section below.

The Playbook summarized the behavioral science intervention evidence available at the time on what interventions can lead to more plant-rich options being consumed in these institutional dining settings. “Since the original publication, food providers serving billions of meals each year have used insights from the 2020 playbook to make operational changes” (Pollicino et al., 2024). This has recently been updated in a new edition of the playbook (Pollicino et al., 2024) in light of greater evidence on what works based on both the academic literature and the experience of practitioners themselves. In total, 18 techniques out of a total of 90 made the final priority shortlist in the second edition of the Food Service Playbook (see below).

Source: Pollicino et al., 2024

Coolfood now works with a host of partner organizations and others to contextualize insights from the playbook to specific sectors (e.g. Health Care Without Harm for the healthcare sector). Finally, Coolfood staff are aware that busy kitchen staff will not read long research reports, so they help organize and facilitate workshops, videos, and training sessions to showcase techniques.

Challenges and Solutions

Disconnect between consumer intent and action

Consumer surveys show that diners are increasingly interested in climate-friendly diets and want more sustainable food options when they eat out (ProVeg International, 2022 in Pollicino et al., 2024). However, Coolfood reported that many consumers don’t understand what counts as climate-friendly food, and many food decisions are driven by the part of the brain that leans into habit and what’s familiar. This is why Coolfood believes food providers have an important role to play in helping diners eat more sustainably. Not only should they ensure sustainable menu items are available, but they can also help educate consumers through their menu and wider communication strategy, according to Coolfood.

Disconnect between research and industry

Coolfood has found that although the academic research summarized in the Playbook identifies many promising techniques to shift demand, industry has yet to adopt these interventions at scale. At the same time, the Playbook also highlighted that there are many techniques favored by industry that have not received academic study. For example, industry practitioners can see clear ways to implement “people techniques” like having front-of-house staff talk about dishes, but these are often the techniques least studied by academics. The Playbook proposed a solution to better connect academia and industry, by identifying a narrow list of techniques which are ready for adoption now, those that require further investigation, and those which should be dropped altogether.

Data collection

Coolfood has found that data collection is often an initial challenge to overcome, as many members have to compile and standardize purchasing data across multiple locations. Coolfood has worked with institutions to improve their data collection process and continues to explore ways to automate parts of the process for members. The Coolfood Calculator was also developed to make it as easy and practical as possible for organizations to understand their associated trends in purchasing volumes and environmental impacts. While the Coolfood Calculator is publicly available for anyone who would like to use it, Coolfood conducts the annual analysis for members, sharing key insights into where members are performing well and identifying where more progress is needed.

Change management

One of the key challenges Coolfood has found are the internal barriers in food service institutions. Often there is a (sometimes well-placed) perception that consumers will mount a backlash against efforts to change their eating habits or remove their choices; other times institutions’ staff lack the technical skills to modify dishes or face operational challenges. Coolfood addresses these challenges by providing case studies of what has worked in the Playbook 2.0, through communication campaigns and events, by organizing training in specific techniques, engaging with leadership to find champions within institutions who can build internal buy-in for change, and focusing on those techniques which add to the consumer experience rather than take away from it.

Trade-offs

Aiming to procure food more sustainably often involves weighing trade-offs among multiple goals, including climate impact, animal welfare, cost, and other social and ethical considerations. Such trade-offs include a potential “shift to crops that consume large amounts of irrigation water (e.g., tree nuts, or certain fruits and vegetables) potentially from water-stressed areas”, a “shift from meat to energy-dense, nutrition-poor foods high in sugars, oils, or refined grains, shifts to plant-rich meals or ingredients with higher costs, lower profit margins, and/or lower sales”, and a “shift from beef and lamb to poultry, pork, or fish (more animals killed, less humane conditions)” (Waite et al., 2019, p. 18). For example, a recent publication by WRI staff (Waite et al., 2024) explored ways in which institutions can weigh considerations around purchasing “less and better meat.” Alongside the report’s insights on evaluating the impacts of different production systems, the authors emphasize that the best strategy for overcoming competing trade-offs between climate and animals is shifting to more plant-based foods. Coolfood staff emphasize that they point people towards their Playbook and as a result, a lot of the emphasis is on plant-based foods. The food purchase changes of members have broadly been to reduce the share of all animal-based products while increasing the share of plant-based products.

Results and Impact

Coolfood now works with organizations collectively serving 9 billion meals a year either through the Coolfood Pledge or implementing their other tools and Playbook techniques with institutions that have not taken the Pledge. Of these, organizations serving 2.4 billion meals a year have taken the Coolfood Pledge. According to 2022 Pledge Data, 48 members, serving more than 1 billion meals per year, who joined prior to 2022 have achieved an overall 10 percent reduction in per-plate emissions.

Among these 48 members who joined prior to 2022, all sectors have increased their share of plant-based food purchases and decreased the overall share of animal-based food purchases. Some sectors—including health care, higher education, and cities—are even ahead of the pace needed to meet Coolfood’s target, achieving a 17.7 percent reduction in per-plate emissions through 2022 (2022 Pledge Data). The table below shows changes in the share of food types on the average plate by weight (kg) through 2022.

Note: Trends shown for members who joined Coolfood prior to 2022

Source: Coolfood 2022 Pledge Data

These 48 members “reduced absolute emissions by 5 percent between the base year and 2022. This reduction was driven by a 2 percent decline in food purchases and an 11 percent decline in purchases of animal-based foods in 2022, relative to the base year. This 5 percent absolute emissions reduction is not on the pace needed for 2030; a reduction of 11.7 percent through 2022 was necessary to be on track” (2022 Pledge Data).

“Members who joined the Coolfood Pledge in 2022–23 have so far reduced their per-plate emissions by 3 percent . . . these newest members of the Coolfood Pledge serve 1.1 billion meals each year, roughly the same number of meals as members who joined pre-2022. However, unlike our earlier members, they have not yet had sufficient time to make significant progress” (2022 Pledge Data). Coolfood will release 2023 data at the end of September 2024. Signatories will need to up the pace to meet their climate goals.

Lessons Learned

Scaling “target, measure, act” approach

Coolfood has found success in encouraging institutions to just make a start, even with imperfect data on food purchasing. As long as the methodology used is robust and underpinned by recognized standards, the food purchasing data helps stakeholders to overcome initial reluctance and generate buy-in at their organization. Once institutions see the climate impacts of their procurement policies and how even small changes can make a difference, the internal motivation to change starts to grow. The data and reporting facilitate conversations about the most effective techniques for change and allows for Coolfood to be more assertive in providing more detailed pathways to reach their targets. Coolfood believes more organizations need to take the “Target, Measure, Act” approach to reduce food-related emissions and shift demand towards plant-based food.

Scaling adoption of behavior strategies

Coolfood’s work is premised on the idea that behavioral science remains an under-leveraged tool to encourage dietary shifts. While the Playbook 2.0 assembled the cutting edge research and experience in the space, it’s clear that there is a need for philanthropy to help scale adoption of the most promising techniques identified in the Playbook and support research on techniques that food service are keen to implement but where evidence is so far lacking. One of the main takeaways for Coolfood is that research needs to be turned into action by engaging stakeholders. “That’s one of the big learnings for me. To get these research insights turned into action, you really need to contextualize them, in terms of target audience, but also sector. What you can do in hospitals is very different to what you can do in schools” (Anne Bordier, Food Initiatives Director at WRI).

Importance of communication

Coolfood is now focused on stepping up the dissemination of their Playbook, delivering workshops, and on establishing more partnerships. These communication strategies are also a way of showing what’s possible. In particular, they believe that impact stories from institutions like IKEA who have implemented techniques from the Playbook are powerful tools in convincing people to act. Storytelling and showcasing successful examples of organizations making progress can help inspire and motivate others to take action. Coolfood is focused on amplifying these positive narratives, and on framing conversations in a way that brings people on board. “One thing that helps is to emphasize enhancing choice, rather than taking away options or restricting choice, because that helps build a lot more buy-in and people are a lot more receptive when they see this is just giving them more options to choose the more plant-forward, healthier, more sustainable option” (Raychel Santo, Senior Food and Climate Research Associate at WRI).

Tracking progress and holding to account

The Coolfood Pledge encourages institutions to commit to reducing the climate impact of their food offerings, but commitment alone is not enough. To ensure meaningful progress, it is essential to have robust tracking mechanisms that monitor changes in food procurement, menu choices, and overall greenhouse gas emissions. By regularly measuring and reporting on these metrics, institutions can identify areas of success and areas needing improvement, enabling them to adjust strategies accordingly. Moreover, transparency in reporting fosters accountability and trust, as institutions are more likely to stay committed to their goals when they know their progress is being scrutinized. This is why Coolfood publishes an annual progress update to communicate publicly how the Pledge signatories are collectively performing. Coolfood also shares an individual progress report with each Pledge member so they can see how they are tracking, understand their hotspots, and identify where they need to prioritize action.

Movement building and alliances

Coolfood has learned there is a big opportunity to partner with like-minded organizations to amplify and disseminate its tools and insights and contextualize them to different sectors. Coolfood has seen progress happen not just by institutions taking the Coolfood Pledge, but from working with partners like Health Care Without Harm. This builds buy-in from the sector that partners have credibility with and know best, and from sharing tools to allow a wider range of institutions to start tackling their food procurement even without signing on to the Pledge.

Conclusion

This case study has highlighted the significant impact that food service institutions can have on promoting sustainable dietary shifts. With a large share of food expenditures occurring outside the home in many countries, these institutions have a unique opportunity to influence consumer behavior on a large scale. Coolfood demonstrates how leveraging data, even when imperfect, can drive meaningful change by catalyzing action among food service providers. The initiative’s use of behavioral science and strategic communication has shown that it is possible to shift consumer preferences towards plant-based, lower-carbon meals.

For philanthropists and advocates, the Coolfood case study underscores the importance of integrating evidence-based strategies while empowering change agents like cities and companies to drive sustainable dietary shifts. For other stakeholders, it also highlights the need for patience and persistence when encouraging organizations to adopt new practices. By taking a collaborative approach and providing the necessary resources and support, initiatives like Coolfood can be successfully scaled and adapted to different contexts. This example illustrates that meaningful change is possible when efforts are focused on empowering institutions to make incremental, yet impactful, adjustments to their food offerings.

Methodology

This collection of case studies was developed through a rigorous, evidence-based approach, ensuring a balanced and objective analysis of dietary transitions across various sectors. The methodology utilized existing literature on plant-based food initiatives, reviewing public-facing materials from organizations working on encouraging plant-based foods, conducting online searches, and key informant interviews. This process involved a comprehensive review of initiatives spanning government policies, retail and food service transitions, and alternative protein companies, farmer transitions, and animal protein company transitions, with examples drawn from both high-income and middle-income countries.

Case study selection

An initial list of 38 potential case studies was identified based on the initiative’s ability to drive significant dietary change and potential for scalability and was evaluated based on a set of predefined success criteria. The primary criteria was that the initiative was designed and intended to increase the share of plant-foods chosen.

This goal intention was the dominant selection criteria. Firstly, rather than attempt to select successful initiatives a priori, as determining whether a given initiative caused changes in food type usage is generally difficult, and reductions/increases are often incorrectly assumed to occur. Experience shows that, in the majority of cases, conclusive evidence is likely to be lacking, and even basic data on actual food type usage before and after the initiative may be altogether unavailable

Secondly, the reliance on this criterion was due to a rather uniform state of the data on many other proposed criteria (Stakeholder engagement, Environmental and economic impacts, Policy and health impacts). The list was systematically narrowed down to six case studies based on an assessment of data reliability and the strength of evidence to support the criteria above, making them critical considerations in the selection process. While many case studies offered generic evidence of success across sectors, efforts were made to prioritise those with concrete, tailored data.

In assembling the final collection, the focus was on creating a diverse portfolio of interventions across geographic and sectoral lines. Examples from both high- and middle-income economies, such as the United States, Germany, Brazil, and India, were included to reflect a broad range of contexts. Additionally, case studies were selected to illustrate both inspiration, practical challenges and enablers of success, ensuring a holistic representation of the state of dietary transitions with transferable insights into other contexts and regions.

Interviewees were selected for each case study on the basis of having been personally involved in the key organisations driving the change in question. In many cases these people were already known to the research team and in others were suggested to us through known relevant contacts. Each case study had one key interviewee to draw information from, in addition to desk research.

Limitations

While this methodology focused on ensuring data reliability and strength of evidence, it inherently limited the scope of the case studies selected. Newer initiatives, which may not yet have comprehensive data or only applied at tiny scale, were not included, resulting in a portfolio composed primarily of well-established cases rather than primarily emerging examples. This approach also led to the exclusion of transitions among livestock and meat companies, and farmer transition case studies, where current evidence remains limited or impacts small in scale. Additionally, the analysis reflects data available at the time of the case studies’ completion, meaning any subsequent reports or new findings were not captured. These gaps highlight areas for future research and expansion as more data becomes available and emerging initiatives mature.

Given the limited interview sample, there are likely aspects of the case studies that are somewhat biased and were not corrected for adequately through desk research to validate claims.

Inherent to the case study methodology, these limitations underscore the importance of continual monitoring and data collection to provide a more comprehensive view of the evolving landscape of dietary transitions.

Bibliography

Attwood, S. (2020). 23 Behavior Change Strategies to Get Diners Eating More Plant-Rich Food. https://www.wri.org/insights/23-behavior-change-strategies-get-diners-eating-more-plant-rich-food

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

Faunalytics. (2020). The Impact Of Replacing Animal Products. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/animal-product-impact-scales/

Faunalytics. (2023). Counting Animals Affected By Institutional Food Purchase. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/animal-product-impact-scales-institutional-use/

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. (n.d.). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model. Accessed in May, 2022 from https://www.fao.org/gleam/en/

Kauffman, J. B., Arifanti, V. B., Trejo, H. H., del Carmen Jesús García, M., Norfolk, J., Cifuentes, M., Hadriyanto, D., & Murdiyarso, D. (2017, January 1). The jumbo carbon footprint of a shrimp: Carbon losses from mangrove deforestation. CIFOR-ICRAF. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1482

McKuin, B., Watson, J. T., Stohs, S., & Campbell, J. E. (2021). Rethinking sustainability in seafood: Synergies and trade-offs between fisheries and climate change. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 9(1), 00081. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2019.00081

Orzechowski. (2022). Global Animal Slaughter Statistics & Charts: 2022 Update—Faunalytics. Faunlytics. https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-charts-2022-update/

Piper, K. (2021). A no-beef diet is great, but don’t replace it with chicken | Vox. Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22430749/beef-chicken-climate-diet-vegetarian

Pollicino, D., Blondin, S., & Attwood, S. (2024). The Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices. World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.22.00151

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Ramsing, R., Santo, R., Kim, B. F., Altema-Johnson, D., Wooden, A., Chang, K. B., … & Love, D. C. (2023). Dairy and plant-based milks: Implications for nutrition and planetary health. Current Environmental Health Reports, 10(3), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00400-z

Ritchie, H. (2020). Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

Ritchie, H.(2020). You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

Ritchie, H. (2022). Are meat substitutes really better for the environment than meat? https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/carbon-footprint-meat-substitutes

Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2022). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

Santo, R. E., Kim, B. F., Goldman, S. E., Dutkiewicz, J., Biehl, E. M., Bloem, M. W., … & Nachman, K. E. (2020). Considering plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats: A public health and food systems perspective. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00134

Seafood Co. (n.d.). Seafood Carbon Emissions Tool. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from http://seafoodco2.dal.ca/”http://seafoodco2.dal.ca”

Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., & Matthews, E. (2019). Creating a Sustainable Food Future. https://www.wri.org/research/creating-sustainable-food-future

Waite, R., & Blondin, S. (2022). Identifying Cool Food Meals: 2022 Update. World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/writn.20.00092.v2

Waite, R., Vennard, D., & Pozzi, G. (2019). Tracking Progress Toward the Cool Food Pledge. https://www.wri.org/research/tracking-progress-toward-cool-food-pledge

Waite, R., Zionts, J., & Cho, C. (2024). Toward “Better” Meat? Aligning Meat Sourcing Strategies with Corporate Climate and Sustainability Goals. https://www.wri.org/research/better-meat-sourcing-climate-sustainability-goals

Waldhorn, D. R., & Autric, E. (2022). Shrimp: The animals most commonly used and killed for food production. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/b8n3t

Waldhorn, D. R., McAuliffe, W., & Mckay, H. D. (2023). Welfare considerations for farmed shrimp. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YAFQV

Wise, J., & Vennard, D. (2019). It’s All in a Name: How to Boost the Sales of Plant-Based Menu Items. https://www.wri.org/insights/its-all-name-how-boost-sales-plant-based-menu-items

1. The Coolfood Pledge commitment targets were calculated using a baseline year of 2015 to meet the level of ambition needed to align with the Paris climate agreement. Many members who have signed on more recently aim for the same reduction targets but using a more recent baseline year. ↑
2. These animals are farmed and caught in vast numbers and likely experience poor welfare conditions (Waldhorn & Autric, 2023; McKay et al., 2023). ↑