After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an explosive increase in restaurant meal delivery or takeout. The purpose of this study was to analyze the consumer perception of food safety and its influence on the purchase of delivery or takeout food from restaurants. This study, the 2020 Consumer Behavior Survey for Food (CBSF), was conducted from June 10 to August 21 2020. A total of 6,355 responses were used for the analysis. The results were as follows: First, the differences in consumer perception about food safety were analyzed according to whether they used delivery or takeout. Concern about food safety, satisfaction with dietary habits, and the ability to maintain safe dietary habits were higher in the non-user group. Except for food at home, the perception about food safety at other locations was higher in the user group. Food hazards such as antibiotics were perceived to be safer in the user group. Second, the perception of food safety affecting use of delivery or takeout was analyzed. It was found that the usage of delivery or takeout increased when the perception of the safety of home meal replacement (HMR), delivery or takeout food, and the ability to be informed about the harmful factors of agricultural products increased. The findings of this study may offer the basis for the food and food service industry to consider safety issues seriously and develop strategies to lead to feasible practices. Further, this study also supports the direction of the government toward strengthening the safety of new segments which have shown explosive growth in the COVID-19 era.

A standardized evaluation framework was developed for contract food service operations to analyze the priority of evaluation factors from the perspectives of contracting organizations (CO) and food service providers (FP). The Delphi technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were used to identify and prioritize evaluation factors reflecting both perspectives. A three-round Delphi survey with 22 experts from academia and industry yielded seven evaluation areas and 46 indicators. Subsequently, an AHP survey was conducted with 40 experts (20 from CO and 20 from FP). The composite weights showed that “quality of menu and food” was rated highest by both parties (CO: 0.0699, FP: 0.0572), followed by “safe hygiene management” (CO: 0.0622, FP: 0.0366). Although CO prioritized “comfort and cleanliness of dining environment” (0.0344) and “meal distribution efficiency” (0.0341), FP emphasized “customer communication and satisfaction” (0.0316) and “food service operation management” (0.0302). By contrast, the lowest-ranked indicators included “carbon emissions management” (CO: 0.0120, FP: 0.0087), “ethical supply chain management” (CO: 0.0110, FP:0.0092), and “use of eco-friendly food materials” (CO: 0.0114, FP: 0.0101). Therefore, although traditional indicators remain dominant, sustainability and digitalization are still emerging in the evaluation framework. This study offers practical insights for enhancing objectivity and transparency in contract food service evaluation.The proposed framework integrates both perspectives, promoting mutual understanding and supporting the development of sustainable and efficient contract food service systems. Policy-level implications include aligning with public-sector evaluation models and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) mandates.

A standardized evaluation framework was developed for contract food service operations to analyze the priority of evaluation factors from the perspectives of contracting organizations (CO) and food service providers (FP). The Delphi technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were used to identify and prioritize evaluation factors reflecting both perspectives. A three-round Delphi survey with 22 experts from academia and industry yielded seven evaluation areas and 46 indicators. Subsequently, an AHP survey was conducted with 40 experts (20 from CO and 20 from FP). The composite weights showed that “quality of menu and food” was rated highest by both parties (CO: 0.0699, FP: 0.0572), followed by “safe hygiene management” (CO: 0.0622, FP: 0.0366). Although CO prioritized “comfort and cleanliness of dining environment” (0.0344) and “meal distribution efficiency” (0.0341), FP emphasized “customer communication and satisfaction” (0.0316) and “food service operation management” (0.0302). By contrast, the lowest-ranked indicators included “carbon emissions management” (CO: 0.0120, FP: 0.0087), “ethical supply chain management” (CO: 0.0110, FP:0.0092), and “use of eco-friendly food materials” (CO: 0.0114, FP: 0.0101). Therefore, although traditional indicators remain dominant, sustainability and digitalization are still emerging in the evaluation framework. This study offers practical insights for enhancing objectivity and transparency in contract food service evaluation.The proposed framework integrates both perspectives, promoting mutual understanding and supporting the development of sustainable and efficient contract food service systems. Policy-level implications include aligning with public-sector evaluation models and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) mandates.

A standardized evaluation framework was developed for contract food service operations to analyze the priority of evaluation factors from the perspectives of contracting organizations (CO) and food service providers (FP). The Delphi technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were used to identify and prioritize evaluation factors reflecting both perspectives. A three-round Delphi survey with 22 experts from academia and industry yielded seven evaluation areas and 46 indicators. Subsequently, an AHP survey was conducted with 40 experts (20 from CO and 20 from FP). The composite weights showed that “quality of menu and food” was rated highest by both parties (CO: 0.0699, FP: 0.0572), followed by “safe hygiene management” (CO: 0.0622, FP: 0.0366). Although CO prioritized “comfort and cleanliness of dining environment” (0.0344) and “meal distribution efficiency” (0.0341), FP emphasized “customer communication and satisfaction” (0.0316) and “food service operation management” (0.0302). By contrast, the lowest-ranked indicators included “carbon emissions management” (CO: 0.0120, FP: 0.0087), “ethical supply chain management” (CO: 0.0110, FP:0.0092), and “use of eco-friendly food materials” (CO: 0.0114, FP: 0.0101). Therefore, although traditional indicators remain dominant, sustainability and digitalization are still emerging in the evaluation framework. This study offers practical insights for enhancing objectivity and transparency in contract food service evaluation.The proposed framework integrates both perspectives, promoting mutual understanding and supporting the development of sustainable and efficient contract food service systems. Policy-level implications include aligning with public-sector evaluation models and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) mandates.