Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:54:59.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Costs and Benefits of Promoting Healthy Takeaway Meals at Workplace Canteens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Jørgen Dejgaard Jensen ,
Morten Raun Mørkbak  and
Jonas Nordström
Jørgen Dejgaard Jensen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Morten Raun Mørkbak
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark, Department of Business and Economics
Jonas Nordström
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Canteen Takeaway is a novel concept, which entails workplace canteens to utilise existing production capacity to supply packaged meals for employees to bring home. The concept has a potential to raise the average nutritional quality of employees’ diets. The purpose of the study is to assess the economic net gains for users, and for society as a whole, of promoting healthy canteen takeaway meals, using Danish workplaces as an example. The analytical framework for the study combines direct cost analyses, users’ willingness to pay estimated through a choice experiment and cost-of-illness methods to assess the net society costs and benefits associated with an extended use of canteen takeaway meals as a health promotion strategy. The results show that employees have a positive willingness to pay for health attributes in canteen takeaway meals, but with a minority having a highly negative willingness to pay for the canteen takeaway concept. The potential health effects of a healthy canteen takeaway programme are estimated to be positive, but modest in magnitude. The estimated costs of providing healthy canteen takeaway meals exceed the sum of average direct and indirect benefits. In conclusion, healthy CTA programmes seems to be an economically sustainable intervention at some workplaces, though the analysis does not fully support a full-scale implementation of healthy CTA programmes at Danish workplaces from a welfare economic perspective.

Keywords

cost-benefit analysisdalychoice experimentcanteen take-away mealshealth
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , 17 December 2012 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2012

References

Adamowicz, W.L., Louviere, J., and Swait, J. (1998). Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1–44. 1-1-1998. Washington, DC, USA, NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 14-9-0004.Google Scholar
Aldana, S.G. (2001). Financial impact of health promotion programs: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Health Promot, vol. 15(5), 296–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldana, S.G., Merrill, R.M., Price, K., Hardy, A., and Hager, R. (2005). Financial impact of a comprehensive multisite workplace health promotion program. Prev Med, vol. 40, 131–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anand, S., and Hanson, K. (1997). Disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. J Health Econ, vol. 16(6), 685–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, K., Timperio, A.F., and Crawford, D. (2006). Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviours: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, vol. 3, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertera, R.L. (1990). The effects of workplace health promotion on absenteeism and employment costs in a large industrial population. Am J Public Health, vol. 80(9), 1101–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisard, P., Cartron, D., Gollac, M., and Valeyre, A. (2002). Time constraints at work and health risks in Europe. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/11/en/1/ef0211en.pdf).Google Scholar
Boyd, N.F., Stone, J., Vogt, K.N., Connelly, B.S., Martin, L.J., and Minkin, S. (2003). Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature. Br J Cancer, vol. 89, 1672–1685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danish Food Agency. (1998). Danskernes kostvaner 1995 (Danes’ dietary habits 1995) (http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/fdir/publications/2000006/kap5.asp) Accessed August 2008.Google Scholar
Erkkilä, A., Mello, V.D.F., Risérus, U., and Laaksonen, D.E. (2008). Dietary fatty acids and cardiovascular disease: an epidemiological approach. Progr Lipid Res, vol. 47, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2007). Work-related stress (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0502TR01/TN0502TR01.pdf).Google Scholar
Fagan, C. (2005). Working-time preferences and work-life balance in the EU: some policy consideration for enhancing the quality of life. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0342.htm). Gastropolis24. (2010). (http://www.gastropolis24.dk).Google Scholar
Gates, D.M., Succop, P., Brehm, B.J., Gillespie, G.L., and Sommers, B.D. (2008). Obesity and presenteeism: the impact of body mass index on workplace productivity. J Occup Environ Med, vol. 50(1), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goett, A., Hudson, K., and Train, K. (2000). Consumers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy J, vol. 21, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M. (1972). On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J Political Econ, vol. 80, 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W., and Wedel, M. (2001). The “no-choice” alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Int J Market Res 43(1), 93–106.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev, vol. 81(3), 635–647.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M. (1999). Welfare analysis with discrete choice models. In Herriges, J.A., and Kling, C. (eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, S., Bierlaire, M., and Polak, J.W. (2007). A systematic comparison of continuous and discrete mixture models. Eur Transp 37, 35–61.Google Scholar
Huber, J., and Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Market Res 33, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjøller, M., Juel, K., and Kamper-Jørgensen, F. (eds.) (2007). Folkesundhedsrapporten Danmark 2007 (Public Health Report 2007). Danish Institute of Public Health.Google Scholar
Kontoleon, A., and Yabe, M. (2003). Assessing the impacts of alternative ‘opt-out’ formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. J Agric Policy Res, vol. 5, 1–43.Google Scholar
Kouris-Blazos, A., and Wahlqvist, M. (2007). Health economics of weight management: evidence and cost. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr, vol. 16 (suppl), 329–338.Google ScholarPubMed
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4), 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchler, F. (ed.) (2001). Valuing the health benefits of food safety: proceedings. United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication, Number 1570 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/MP1570/). Accessed October 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, W. (2004). Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques [online]. SAS Institute Inc. (http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts694.pdf).Google Scholar
Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ, vol. 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancsar, E., and Savage, E. (2004). Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ Lett 13, 901–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lock, K., Pomerleau, J., Causer, L., and McKee, M. (2004). Low fruit and vegetable consumption. In Ezzati, M., Lopez, A.D., Rodgers, A., Murray, C.J.L. (eds.) Comparative quantification of health risks. Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors, vol. 2, WHO.Google Scholar
Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods. analysis and applications. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behaviour. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mäkelä, J., Kjærnes, U., Ekström, M.P., Fürst, E.L.O., Gronow, J., and Holm, L. (1999). Nordic meals: methodological notes on a comparative survey. Appetite, vol. 32, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J., and Liebe, U. (2009). Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85(3), 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D., Shannon, B.M., McKenzie, J., Smicklas-Wright, H., Miller, B.M., and Tershakovec, A.M. (2000). Lower fat diets for children did not increase food costs, J Nutr Educ, Vol. 32(2) pp. 100–103 doi: 10.1016/S0022-3182(00)70526-7.Google Scholar
Moisio, R., Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. (2004). Between mothers and markets. Constructing family identity through home-made food. J Consumer Culture, 4(3), 361–384.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, H., and Bursic, E.S. (1982). A method for using epidemiologic data to estimate the potential impact of an intervention on the health status of a target population. J Comm Health, vol. 7(4), 292–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murcott, A. (1982). On the social significance of the “cooked dinner” in South Wales. Social Sci Infor, 21, 677–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murcott, A. (1983). “It’s a pleasure to cook for him”: food, mealtimes and gender in some South Wales households. In Gamarnikow, E., et al. (eds.), The public and the private. London: Heinemann Educational Books, pp. 78–90.Google Scholar
Murray, C.J.L., and Acharya, A.K. (1997). Understanding DALYs. J Health Econ, 16(6), 703–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, A.C. (2010) (http://dk.nielsen.com/products/crs_hs_choice.shtml). Accessed October 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Nordström, J. (2011). Valuation of health inputs and convenience in new products. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Osler, M., Godtfredsen, J., Grønbæk, M., Marckmann, P., and Overvad, K. (2000). En kvantitativ vurdering af kostens betydning for dødeligheden af hjertesygdomme i Danmark, Beregning af ætiologisk fraktion. Ernæringsrådet, 2000.Google Scholar
Pedersen, A.N., Fagt, S., Groth, M.V., Christensen, T., Biltoft-Jensen, A., Matthiesen, J., Andersen, N.L., Kørup, K., Hartkopp, H., Ygil, K.H., Hinsch, H-J., Saxholt, E., and Trolle, E. (2010). Danskernes kostvaner 2003–2008 – Hovedresultater, Rapport, DTU Fødevareinstituttet.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, C.A., Canter, D.D., and Gregoire, M.B. (1997). Profitability and acceptability of fat- and sodium-modified hot entrees in a worksite cafeteria. J Am Diet Assoc, vol. 97(4), 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choice of 495 appliance efficiency level. Rev Econom Statistics, vol. 80(4), 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., Lobstein, T., and Knai, C. (2007). Obesity and socio-economic groups in Europe: evidence review and implications for action. SANCO/05/C4-NUTRITION-03, funded by the European Commission.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Villegas, A., Henriquez, P., Bes-Rastrollo, M., and Doreste, J. (2006). Mediterranean diet and depression. Publ Health Nutr, vol. 9, 1104–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, A.K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Soler, R.E., Leeks, K.D., Razi, S., Hopkins, D.P., Griffith, M., Aten, A., Chattopadhyay, S.K., Smith, S.C., Habarta, N., Goetzel, R.Z., Pronk, N.P., Richling, D.E., Bauer, D.R., Buchanan, L.R., Florence, C.S., Koonin, L., MacLean, D., Rosenthal, A., Matson, Koffman D., Grizzell, J.V., and Walker, A.M. (2010). The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion: the assessment of health risks with feedback. Am J Prev Med, vol. 38 (2, suppl 1), S237–S262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistics Denmark. (2010). Statistikbanken (www.statistikbanken.dk).Google Scholar
Terry, P., Giovannucci, E., Michels, K.B., Bergkvist, L., Hansen, H., Holmberg, L., and Wolk, A. (2001). Fruit, vegetable, dietary fiber and risk of colorectal cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst, vol. 93(7), 525–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, B., Senauer, B., and Runge, C.F. (2007). An empirical analysis of and policy recommendations to improve the nutritional quality of school meals. Rev Agric Econ, vol. 29(4), 672–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, M., Kamakura, W., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R., Lenk, P., Neslin, S., and Poulsen, C.S. (1999). Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Market Lett 10(3), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO. (2000). Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic – report of a WHO consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 894.Google Scholar
WHO. (2005). Public health action for healthier children and populations. Copenhagen, Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
WHO. (2010). Metrics: disability-adjusted life year (DALY) – quantifying the burden of disease from mortality and morbidity (www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/index.html). Accessed October 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Zhang, S., Hunter, D.J., Forman, M.R., Rosner, B.A., Speizer, F.E., Colditz, G.A., Manson, J.E., Hankinson, S.E., and Willett, W.C. (1999). Dietary carotenoids and vitamins A, C and E and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, vol. 91(6), 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar