1 23
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
Break and Canteens for Wellbeing at Work
in Europe
Paolo Corvo, Michele Filippo
1 23
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 [email protected]
Paolo Corvo [email protected]
Raffaele Matacena [email protected]
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).
Thus, food was an interstitial object that became part of the everyday landscape by adapt-ing spaces and concurrently adaptadapt-ing 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 revoluproduc-tion’ (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).
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).
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 wellwell-being 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 dowellbe-ing, 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.
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.
Table
1
L
unc
h-br
eak timing, lengt
Table
2
Deg
ree of contr
ol o
ver timing and lengt
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.
Fig. 1 Degree of control over
Table 3 Place wher e lunc h is usuall y sour ced, r epor ted b y countr ies On da ys t hat y ou ar e w or king, wher e do y ou usuall y g et y our lunc h? Sam ple (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%) Fr om home 42 30 27 33 47 40 56 37 55 45 49 St aff r es taur ant or caf eter ia 20 26 30 17 21 21 17 34 17 11 12 A local r es taur ant 5 9 4 3 2 7 1 11 4 14 1 A local sandwic h shop/bak er y or snac k bar 5 4 6 7 9 6 3 2 3 – 8
An off-site shop or super
mar ke t 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 f as t f ood outle t 2 1 1 2 1 1 – 2 – 2 3
An off-site coffee shop or caf
Table 6 Mo tiv ations behind t he decision of wher e t o buy lunc h f ood, r epor ted b y countr ies. Onl y f act ors scor ing at leas t 10% in at leas t one of t he countr ies ar e sho wn When c hoosing wher e t o buy y our w or k-da y lunc h fr om, whic h 4 fact ors ar e mos t im por tant t o y ou? Sam ple (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%) Pr ice 42 56 44 33 46 41 34 52 41 34 44 Value f or mone y 33 28 35 37 45 26 27 34 29 26 40 Quality/fr eshness of f ood 30 30 25 26 40 30 27 32 33 41 29 Con venience/close-b y location 27 26 21 30 34 36 24 21 25 36 27 Var ie ty/c hoice 21 19 28 20 19 21 16 19 21 17 26 Speed of ser vice/lengt h of q ueues 19 25 22 16 23 21 10 21 18 20 16 Pr ovides fr eshl y-cook ed f ood 18 36 15 20 17 13 18 18 21 22 11 Good ser vice/fr iendl y s taff 14 19 13 10 17 19 10 21 20 15 11 Habit or r outine 14 16 15 15 16 13 14 10 12 12 13 Who I am lunc hing wit h/social g roup 13 19 16 16 9 12 11 14 6 18 7 Por tion Size 13 26 13 13 14 13 8 9 12 9 13 Good atmospher e/ambiance 11 19 13 10 4 15 11 16 14 9 7 Pr ovides ‘g rab-and-go ’ f ood t hat I can t ak e a wa y 10 7 13 10 10 13 6 6 9 13 12 Pr ovides healt hy op tions/f ood t hat helps me s tic k t o m y die t or healt hy eating plan 10 7 4 10 17 14 12 13 14 8 9
Special offers/meal deals
Table 7 Mo tiv ations behind t he decision of what f ood t o eat f or lunc h, r epor ted b y countr ies. Onl y f act ors scor ing at leas t 10% in at leas t one of t he countr ies ar e sho wn When c hoosing what t o eat f or y our lunc h, whic h 4 f act ors ar e mos t im por tant t o y ou? Sam ple (%) Cz(%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%) Tas te 42 60 40 41 49 37 41 37 31 44 46 Pr ice 41 61 39 33 41 41 35 51 38 44 43 Value f or mone y 35 29 42 38 43 22 28 30 37 34 42 Quality/fr eshness of f ood 35 46 34 28 39 40 29 43 34 45 30 Healt hiness 27 17 21 27 34 25 32 38 35 21 23 Por tion sizes 18 35 17 20 16 17 13 14 18 18 20 Dail y budg et 18 20 24 12 20 19 16 25 21 11 18 Appear ance/pr esent ation 13 18 13 11 12 14 14 23 15 12 10 Can be eaten on t he go/t ak en bac k t o m y desk 13 12 13 17 18 11 10 4 7 14 18 Natur al/sim ple ing redients 13 8 16 13 10 22 9 13 20 11 9
Special offers/meal deals
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 colcol-leagues 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’.
Table 8 P er ceiv ed effects of t he lunc h-br eak , r epor ted b y countr ies. R esults ar e sho wn as mean v alues. R esponses ar e e xpr essed as deg ree of ag
reement on a 5-point Lik
scale, r anging fr om 1 (s trong ly disag ree) t o 5 (s trong ly ag ree) Sam ple CZ FR DE IR IT NL PT ES SW UK Please indicate y our le vel of ag reement wit h t he follo wing s tatements I find t
hat when I lea
ve m y w or kspace f or lunc h, I am able t o w or k be tter when I r etur n 3.3 2.97 3.19 3.13 3.6 3.52 3.18 3.59 3.45 3.17 3.44 I of ten f eel a dr op in ener gy le vels dur ing t he af ter noon 3.28 3.47 3.16 3.4 3.57 3.4 2.96 3.2 3.31 3 3.46 Regular ly c hatting wit h colleagues o ver lunc h helps build s trong er teams 3.62 3.56 3.54 3.58 3.8 3.62 3.51 3.98 3.7 3.74 3.51
I wish I could mee
Table 9 Die tar y pr ef er ences f or lunc h on w or king da ys, r epor ted b y countr ies Whic h 5 of t hese f oods do y ou mos t lik e t o eat f or lunc h whils t at w or k? Sam ple (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%) Cold sandwic hes/wr aps/subs 39 34 31 27 59 38 47 25 32 21 63 Fr uit and fr uit pr
oducts (e.g. com
po te) 27 20 29 28 25 28 28 37 30 13 27 Chic
ken based meals (R
oas t/BBQ/F ried e tc.) 24 40 23 20 23 16 9 38 21 51 17 Pas
ta based meals (Carbonar
a/lasagne/Gnocc hi e tc.) 24 30 28 28 14 28 11 22 25 46 15 Healt hy snac ks (cer eal bars/v eg et ables s tic ks/dr ied fr uit) 23 24 19 18 30 27 22 24 32 15 26 Soups and S tew s 23 35 7 22 36 9 27 36 14 20 29 Healt hy meals (lo w salt/sug ar/calor ie/sug ar) 22 21 21 16 24 26 25 36 29 17 17 Dair y based desser ts (Y ogur ts/Ice cr eam/Cheese cak es) 20 16 28 21 14 19 24 15 27 7 19 Veg et ar ian Salads (Gr een/Gr eek/P as ta based) 19 12 23 17 16 33 17 20 31 16 14 Pr
otein Salads (incl. Meat/fish in salads)
19 12 22 23 19 17 12 22 15 36 17 Cold snac ks (Chocolate/po tat o c hips/popcor n/) 17 15 13 11 26 17 7 9 18 8 37 Cak e based desser ts (Cak es/Br ownies/Cupcak es) 17 23 27 11 16 21 6 18 14 8 21 Ho t Sandwic hes/wr aps/subs 17 6 11 13 37 21 18 10 20 10 28
Red meat based meal (Gr
illed meats/P or k/Ribs) 17 25 22 25 13 10 5 30 12 29 7
Rice based dishes (F
ried Rice/P
aella/Beans & Rice e
tc.) 15 25 18 17 11 18 8 13 24 14 8 Ho t snac ks (Cr oq ue ttes/Chur ro/P as ty/q uesadilla e tc.) 14 12 14 9 7 26 28 14 16 – 15 Fas t F ood (Bur gers/F ried Chic ken/K ebab/F ish & c hips) 14 9 16 14 14 8 12 17 12 18 19 Fish/seaf
ood based meals (T
una/Cr ab cak es/mussels) 14 17 16 8 11 10 8 25 13 31 7 Pas
try based meals (Pizza/t
ar ts/q uic he/pies e tc.) 13 7 14 19 7 17 8 15 9 11 14
Deli based meals (Made t
o or der f ood/Char cuter ie/Salads) 12 21 9 10 22 18 7 11 12 7 8
Noodle based dishes (Chinese/Thai/Japanese e
Table 9 (continued) Whic h 5 of t hese f oods do y ou mos t lik e t o eat f or lunc h whils t at w or k? Sam ple (%) CZ (%) FR (%) DE (%) IR (%) IT (%) NL (%) PT (%) ES (%) SW (%) UK (%) Shar ing plates (N ac hos/T apas/Meze/Antipas ta) 6 8 9 5 2 11 5 7 10 4 4 Fr ee fr om f
oods meals (Gluten fr
ee/nut fr ee e tc.) 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 6 Dum
pling based meals
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.
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 3rd position among the European countries
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 percentaver-age 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,
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
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.
5.6 Eating at Work in the Netherlands
What results from the survey is that Dutch workers are very busy. In fact, 9% of them declare eating while working, and only 53% of them take a break from the activity to have lunch every day, the lowest record in the whole European sample. Another record regards the mean length of lunch-breaks: in the Netherlands, the average amount of time dedicated to lunch is just 25.8 min, the lowest in Europe. An immediate implication is that most workers (77%) choose not to leave the building where they work, thus opting to have their meal at the desk (21%), in the office break area (37%), or at the company canteen (19%). Few of them, especially compared to other countries, go home; and even fewer (only 2%, precisely) opt for a high-street restaurant. Within their work premises, then, most Dutch eat with colleagues (65%), while slightly less than one third is accus-tomed to eating alone. Interestingly, food is mainly brought from home, and only 17% is purchased from the canteen. The average daily expenditure on food is remarkably low: with a mean of 3.71euros, the Dutch spend only a few cents more than Czechs, despite the very different purchasing power characterizing the two countries, and that is true even if 72% of workers in the Netherlands receive no type of subsidy for food expenses. What emerges is a model better represented by the concept of the ‘quick bite’, rather than embodying a real lunch. Dutch workers, indeed, have the smallest consumption of hot meals of the whole sample, among which main figures regard hot sandwiches, soups and stews. Classic, proper dishes—whether cereal- or meat-based—are much less frequent than in other countries. Cold sandwiches, snacks (especially hot snacks), fruit and yogurts: these kinds of quick on-the-go foods are the norm. Functionality appears to be the key word. It works also as a driver for guiding the decision about what and where to eat. Instead of more ‘substantial’ elements (such as price, quality, taste, freshness), the Dutch appear to evaluate functional characteristics, both extrinsic, like appear-ance, presentation, packaging, certifications (e.g. Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance), and intrinsic, i.e. healthiness, low calorie and sugar content. This model, though, apparently leads to surprising results: Netherlands is the country whose workers feel less afternoon energy drops. Considering the repartition of the responses, this dimension is surely worth further exploration.
5.7 Eating at Work in Portugal
of going to high-street restaurants on a daily basis is also diffused.
The Portuguese diet is based on proteins and vegetables. Red and white meat, and (unsurprisingly) lots of fish is commonly consumed, more prominently among men. Sal-ads, soups, other veggie-based dishes, and healthy foods are also basic elements, especially of women’s nutrition. Carbohydrates are also not lacking, more pasta and pizza than rice. Furthermore, fruit consumption is relevant, as that of desserts. Even if eating fast food is slightly more common than the EU average, sandwiches, snacks and ethnic food score lower than many other countries.
These, undoubtedly, are the features of a lunch that resembles a traditional midday meal, a kind that is not bowed to pressures deriving from a frenzied life- and working-style, in which food is celebrated as an important trait of material culture and daily life. This also seems to provide beneficial effects for working performances: despite not being among the top countries for what regards afternoon energy, in Portugal the effect of post-meridian energy drop is felt way less than in many other nations, as for instance Germany, Ireland and the UK.
5.8 Eating at Work in Spain
Having at their disposal a fair amount of time to have lunch (an average of 46.6 min, almost ten minutes more than the EU average), most Spanish interviewees are used to going back home during lunch-breaks. A 52% share of the sample, indeed, chooses home as the lunch location: an overwhelming figure if compared to the mean value of 21% registered for the whole sample, representing a record within the Pan European survey.
Contrary to what common sense may suggest, the survey shows that in Spain workday food is quite expensive. An average of 6.59 euros a day puts Spain in 2nd position in the ranking of the most expensive countries in relation to workday food. Spaniards spend more than the British, for example, and are second only to the Swedish, an impressive result if we take into account the socio-economic (and price indexes) discrepancies between the two countries. In addition, the vast majority of Spanish workers (74%) receive no kind of subsidy for buying their lunch. It comes as no surprise, then, that both high-street and company-provided restaurants are quite commonly avoided. For canteens, figures show that daily users are just 5% of the sample, the lowest record amid the whole survey. As a coun-terweight, though, Spaniards are (relatively) heavy users of company-provided bars and cafeterias (6% use it daily, vs. an EU average of 2%), which are probably commonly chosen to purchase snacks, or by those who do not go back home for lunch.
5.9 Eating at Work in Sweden
In contrast to breakfast, which is skipped by 43% of the sample, lunch-breaks in Sweden are observed by the vast majority of interviewees (73%). Yet they are quite short, lasting only 36.9 min on average. Lunch is taken prominently in two places: an overwhelming majority—61% of workers—use office break or rest areas for lunch purposes, especially women (among whom the share rises to 71%), representing a record among the whole sam-ple, whose mean value for this entry is 31%; secondly, high-street restaurants are chosen by 12% of the sample, with values summing up to around 20% in the case of men and workers coming from the highest social classes. As a consequence, company canteens are under-utilized by the Swedes. Only 8% regularly use them, against an EU average of 17%. Very few Swedish workers are used to going back home to have lunch with their families, yet they do not like to eat alone: 72% of the sample, indeed, report meeting colleagues over lunch. Even though a small yet significant percentage is purchased in off-site shops and supermarkets, most of the food consumed within the work area is brought from home (45%). This is probably due to the fact that 81% of respondents do not receive any form of subsidy to buy lunch, and that price levels are quite high: on average, a Swedish worker spends 55.51 kr (6.11 euros) on food every day, the highest value among the whole survey.
Notwithstanding, bringing food to work from home seems more like a cultural or lifestyle custom rather than a response to an economic restriction. When asked which elements they take into consideration when choosing where and what to eat, indeed, the weight of price, budget, value-for-money and special offers variables result lighter than many other elements. What they most prominently look for, actually, is food taste and quality, freshness, and a series of other elements regarding specific food characteristics. They want food that meets special dietary requirements (religious, ethic, etc.), which is locally grown, sustainable and—for many—vegetarian and organic. Interestingly, energy and macro-nutrient contents (fat, salt, sugar) are less considered by the Swed-ish, on a counter-trend with respect to many other countries. When they have to decide where to buy their food, thus, they not only search for places providing an offer with the previously listed characteristics, they also appreciate convenience and proximity to their workplace—because many want to grab their food and take it back to their offices—and, above all, they are prone to taking into account the needs of their table companions, of the social group they partake in during lunchtime. So, whether in a restaurant or in the office break area, lunch is a highly social issue in Sweden.
The average diet of Swedish workers can be described as a classic Nordic food regi-men affected by external influences. They eat meat and fish with great frequency, even salads are often reinforced with an animal protein source. They also eat a lot of pasta, much more than Italians: 46% of Swedes, indeed, report eating pasta every day, while the same can be said for only for 28% of Italian workers. The Swedish also love ethnic food (noodles-based, curries) and street food.
From the survey it appears that British workers are constantly in a hurry. Even if only 13% do not believe in the beneficial effects that leaving the workspace for lunch provides, many of them do not leave their workplaces at lunchtime. So, for example, only 56% declare stopping their working activity to have lunch on a regular basis. Those who eat while work-ing are 8%, and those who do not stop at all are 7%. If they take a lunch-break, normally the break is very short: only 33.5 min, on average. Thus, throughout the sample, it is in the UK where we find the largest percentage of workers eating at their desks (28%). Moreover, we can notice that here, as well as in Italy, there is another 4% who eat their lunch on-the-go, which must be summed up to the previous figure. The rest of British respondents, instead, almost completely use the company canteen services: other options, like going to a restaurant or returning home during the break, are rarely selected.
Another striking characteristic is that, as far as work-day lunch routines are concerned, British workers are solitary. Those who eat alone are 44%, many points ahead of the Euro-pean average (31%).
The majority of workers bring their own food from home, even if it is consumed within the canteen facility. Those who buy ready-to-consume food on a daily basis, instead, enable the researcher to understand what kinds of food are commonly chosen. The British, in fact, are not used to buying their food from full-service restaurants. They prefer places selling quick, convenient and easily transportable food: high scores are registered for sandwich shops, supermarkets, and fast food outlets. Since the vast majority (77%) do not receive any form of subsidy for purchasing lunch, they also want their food to be cheap. This is reflected in the average expenditure on workday food, which is 4.33 lb a day (5.69 euros), a rather small value if we take into account the higher-than-average price levels character-izing the British economy.
If we take a look at workday dietary patterns, our hypothesis is confirmed. Eating sand-wiches on a daily basis is a habit for 63% of UK workers, far above the EU average of 39%. Having snacks for lunch (especially savory cold snacks) regards 37% of the sample, while 19% opt for fast food. Other commonly chosen food items are pizzas, stews and soups, cakes, and various ethnic dishes. On the contrary, more traditional (and perhaps nutrition-ally adequate) food groups are less consumed compared with other countries: vegetables, meat, fish and grains do not appear as a relevant part of the daily lunch routines of many Brits. The same, furthermore, can be said for the healthy food segment.
When choosing where to purchase food, and what to eat, the functional values are those most taken into consideration. Neither intrinsic values attached to food—such as freshness, naturalness, simplicity, seasonality, appearance—nor characteristics of the outlet—like availability of space for groups, friendliness of staff, ambiance and atmosphere—appear as significant drivers of purchasing choices. The food the British search is tasty, served in large portions, comes from a trusted brand, offers value for money, is sold with a special offer and can be easily transported to work. And for some, following a presumably increas-ing trend, it is vegetarian.
6 Lunch‑Break and Employees’ Wellbeing at Work
As the previous sections have shown, the research outlines a diversified situation across the continent. Yet, in spite of the peculiarities of each country, it is possible to detect some underlying trends that link the fruition of the lunch-break to workers’ perception of wellbeing at work.
First of all, throughout the continent the workers’ expectations about lunch are asso-ciated with the intent of accomplishing a better work performance in the afternoon, since a large proportion of the European respondents do not disagree with this belief (82%). This understanding is particularly strong in Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK, where the risk of a drop in energy in the afternoon is strongly perceived. Inter-estingly, in the first four countries such risk is associated with the idea of a too generous midday meal, whereas in the UK the respondents conversely link it to a too light lunch or skipping the meal altogether. Furthermore, the research suggests that a similar per-ception—akin to the ‘too light lunch—more afternoon fatigue’ association of the Brit-ish—is often shared throughout the continent by people conducting office work. Sur-prisingly, more ‘traditional’ lunch patterns are associated with less afternoon fatigue, challenging the commonplace preference for the ‘quick and light bite’. Overall, thus, our study highlights the need for correct information concerning how to arrange a meal, and what foods to eat, because uncertainty appears to negatively affect the perception of wellbeing at work.
Connected to this point, another key issue is linked to the independence of workers in choosing timing and length of breaks. Evidence from the survey indicates that only 31% of the workers are able to freely choose their own lunch-break patterns, while, on the other end, almost the same percentage (28%) report having no control over the timing and lengths of breaks, which are instead fixed and managed by others. Overall, this lack of freedom hampers the perception of wellbeing at work, as it is instead positively cor-related to a higher degree of freedom to enjoy longer lunchtime breaks.
Moreover, perception of wellbeing is associated with the possibility to have one’s own meal in ‘devoted’ places, i.e. spaces whose purpose is to gather individuals at lunch-time who wish to consume their meals. This preference is also intertwined with the need for sociality and the aspiration to enjoy a relaxing lunch in a comfortable place. In design-ing such an environment, it appears necessary to take into account providdesign-ing workers with the possibility to chat with colleagues, which is considered a key element that only a minority of the respondents (12%) argued against. Most interviewees (60%) indeed agree with the fact that regularly sharing lunch with colleagues is a positive factor in the process of team construction. This turns out to be a crucial element especially for bigger compa-nies, probably to contrast the social dispersion and individualization that characterize inter-personal and working relationships in hugely populated workplaces.
Hence, in summary, the lunch-break turns out to be a positive experience when it fosters rich and satisfactory relations among colleagues and promotes the construction of efficient working groups. On the basis of these main common trends, though, in each surveyed country workers express specific expectations, which would require tailored interventions, as synthetically suggested by Table 10, which groups suggested interven-tions under two main axis, namely lunch-break location and food offer.
management? Canteens had a central role in the development of the industrial economy in the twentieth century all across Europe. They became synonymous with easy access to food for workers, although their name came to be associated with the idea of cheap but poor quality meals. In present times, such a model of catering appears outdated. However, a centralized catering service still holds value as a useful strategy consid-ering the main drivers of food and location choice for lunch-breaks among workers. Our research points out that workers decide where to eat based on food cost and qual-ity, as well as service quality and location. In fact, with the exception of France, large swathes of workers commonly purchase their meals at the staff restaurant or canteen because these facilities can match their expectations concerning meal price and con-sumption place. Thus, canteens can still play a pivotal role in boosting wellbeing at work, although it is foreseeable that in order to deliver the appropriate products and services to workers they will need to undergo a process of change.
Our findings capture the transformative process that is currently affecting canteens, in the ways they are lived and used by workers. In the past century, canteens were created through a structural separation between the workplace and the place dedicated to food and feeding. A dedicated, clean space for the workers was created. Those new spaces mirrored the structure of industrial organization, by commonly reproducing a separation between blue and white collars and between high- and low-level employees. In this respect, a can-teen such as the one of Olivetti SpA, in Italy, where blue and white collar workers and executive managers had lunch together, has long been considered an international excep-tion to the general model that required distinct places dedicated to the different classes of employees (Olivetti 2014). Our research highlights how at the present time this original system of functional and social separation is apparently outdated. In fact, in the age of Industry 4.0 (Smit et al 2016) the functional division gets blurred and the canteen turns into a hybrid space–time where food links with work, leisure, and rest. Moreover, the social distinction among workers appears largely surpassed and the same canteen is now used by all the workers of a firm regardless of their roles. In this respect, the canteen turns into a field for socialization among employees.
Contemporary society is characterized by liquid life (Bauman 2005), with individuals increasingly struggling to find a definition of their objectives concerning work and private life. The good quality of friendly and affective relationships is conditioned by a fragmented concept of social life based on consumption. In this context, people are often homesick. They look forward to a community to which they can belong, in order to recover a lost sense of ‘at-homeness’ (Bauman 2000). In this sense, food is strategic for realizing the desire of community in Western society. Lunch time represents an opportunity for creating conviviality and favoring encounters and acquaintance (Corvo 2015). In all ten countries included in the survey, our research has been able to confirm the importance of lunch time and canteens as places that can stimulate new and stronger relationships. Moreover, our analysis has not only argued for the importance of a positive lunch time for the meaningful-ness of life, but has also emphasized the close connection between the multidimensional characteristics of a working-day midday meal (the food eaten, but also the place, the soci-ality, the atmosphere, etc.) and the work performance in the afternoon. It is the recogni-tion of this relarecogni-tionship that has already led many innovative companies to enforce specific actions to improve canteens and allow free time for their workers.
Table
10
Summar
y of sugg
es
ted actions based on t
he differ ent e xpect ations t hat w or kers in t he 10 countr
ies associate wit
h lunc
h-br
eak location and f
ood Countr y Sugg es ted actions Czec h R epublic Location Comf or table place t o boos t sociality Food offer Based on nutr itious, y et healt hy dishes designed t o help activ
ely balance die
tar y patter ns t ow ar ds healt hier models and t o be easy t o t ak e a wa y Fr ance Location Comf or table place t o boos t sociality Food offer Designed t o enhance w or kers ’ specific, attentiv e, and ar ticulated demand, t aking int o high consider ation t he gender ed division of f ood desir es, e xpect ations and r outines Ger man y Location Comf or
table place designed t
o encour ag e r elax ation Food offer Based on con
venient and easy dishes designed t
o sa ve time and pr ev ent s tress Ireland Location Comf or table place t o boos t sociality Food offer Designed t o pr
ovide easy and q
uic k access t o nutr itionall y adeq uate dishes Ital y Location Fr iendl y en vir onment wit h q uality of ser vice Food offer Designed t o pr ovide q
uality and easil
y accessible f ood Ne ther lands Location Comf or
table place designed t
o encour ag e r elax ation Food offer Based on nutr itious y et healt hy dishes Por tug al Location Comf or
table places wit
h tr aditional r es taur ant-lik e atmospher e Food offer Based on r ich, nour ishing f ood Spain Location Comf or table place t o boos t sociality Food offer Tailor ed t o enhance pos t-mer idian w or k per for mances Sw eden Location Fr iendl y place t o boos t sociality Food offer Designed t o enhance w or kers ’ specific, attentiv e, and ar ticulated demand, t
aking in high consider
ation t he gender ed division of f ood desir es, e xpect ations and r outines United Kingdom Location Comf or
table place designed t
o encour ag e r elax ation Food offer Based on nutr itious, y et healt hy dishes designed t o help activ
ely balance die
tive, canteens have a positive future ahead.
7 Conclusion
The paper investigated the link between lunch-break and workers’ perception of wellbeing at work. In particular, it confirmed the role of the break in bringing about an increase in perceived wellbeing. This effect depends on the matching of the expectations of the work-ers in terms of nutrition, postmeridian productivity, socialization and physical wellbeing with the positive outcome ascribed to the break; in a context in which—it is important to notice—workers in different countries may associate different specific priorities with their lunch-break. Facing this complex scenario, employers can still find in the organization of workers’ canteens a good tool for meeting their workers’ expectations and promoting their wellbeing at work. In fact, this research suggests that canteens are places that can still play a fundamental role in reinforcing wellbeing.
Throughout the last century, canteens have embodied a resource for employees’ well-being since they addressed the main goal of providing easy and cheap access to food for workers. Yet today canteens are approaching a more complex social scenario. While food shortage is no longer a main concern for most of the European population—who rather have to face problems deriving from the excessive availability of food—canteens have to articulate an offer that cannot hinge only on the concept of food cheapness. This research emphasizes how workers develop their food demand according to different factors, and price is just one of them. Other drivers highlighted by this study are quality of food, work efficiency and need for sociality. Therefore, to maintain centrality in the foodscape of Euro-pean workers, canteens should strive to address all four of these factors. Otherwise, it is arguable that canteens will downgrade to become (or, in some cases, maintain their con-dition as) just a marginal option sought only for necessity and/or obligation. While this appears to be the principal recommendation that emerges from the research, it is also possi-ble to argue that the actual articulation of the service should address the specific needs and features that mark and distinguish each country.
References
Abel, W. (2006). Agricultural fluctuations in Europe: From the thirteenth to the twentieth centuries. New York - London: Routdlege.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being (pp. 63–106). NewYork: Plenum Press.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, Minn.: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press.
Ares, G., De Saldamando, L., Giménez, A., & Deliza, R. (2014). Food and wellbeing towards a consumer-based approach. Appetite, 74(1), 61–69.
Baptiste, R. N. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46(2), 284–309.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Missing community. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beriss, D., & Sutton, D. E. (2007). The restaurants book: Ethnographies of where we eat. Oxford: Berg. Bravo, G. L. (2013). Italiani all’alba del nuovo millennio. Milano: Franco Angeli.
