Consumer knowledge of and engagement with traditional takeaway and dark kitchen food outlets

Introduction

Dark kitchens, also called ghost or cloud kitchens, are delivery-only ‘virtual’ commercial food spaces that do not have a customer-facing storefront and operate largely through third-party aggregator platforms (e.g., Just Eat, Uber Eats, Deliveroo). They are a contemporary addition to the food environment in the United Kingdom (UK), likely finding popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic (Keeble et al., 2023). Operating at relatively low-cost within urban environments with easy access to consumers and potential for large geographical reach (Rinaldi et al., 2022), dark kitchens offer a lucrative business model (de Souza et al., 2022; Food Standards Agency, 2022) within a rapidly growing market (Statista, 2022). Indeed, the worldwide market size is predicted to increase to $177.85 billion by 2032, an increase of more than $122 billion since 2022 (Statista, 2024).

The growth of dark kitchens presents additional complexity when evaluating the place-based food environment and potential impact on health (Keeble et al., 2020; Rinaldi et al., 2022), compounded by lack of clarity of how many exist and how to define them. There is a need to understand the complexity of the changing foodscape from both a professional and consumer awareness perspective. However, dark kitchens are particularly difficult to monitor and regulate (Food Standards Agency, 2022) as the number, type and impact is largely unknown. The lack of clarity in nutritional quality of foods offered by many of these businesses (Fernandez & Raine, 2021; Keeble et al., 2020), and potential for poor food safety practices (Crawford & Benjamin, 2019) are cause for concern, and best practice is yet to be established.

Increasingly, consumers are keen to understand where their food is coming from, with recent purchasing trends related to ingredient provenance and transparency of the food supply chain leading to improved consumer trust and brand loyalty which drives intention to purchase (Cai et al., 2022; Moralez, 2019). While there is some evidence of consumer attitudes towards dark kitchens (e.g., Pookulangara et al., 2023), there is limited understanding of consumer awareness of dark kitchens and how the dark kitchen sector influences consumer decision making and purchase behaviours. However, the online third-party aggregator platforms do provide a level of data transparency for the consumer by providing food hygiene ratings and other purchaser reviews on their platforms which are easy to access, to allow the consumers to make more informed food choices.

Methods

Results

In total, 2,023 participants responded to the online questionnaire between April and June 2024. Mean age of the participants was 46.3 ± 16.7 years (range: 18 to 91 years). Further demographic characteristics are displayed in Table 1. A representative sample of the UK population were recruited, with demographic profiles (for age, sex and ethnicity) aligning with the most recent census data (Office for National Statistics, 2024). Most participants (n = 1,990, 98.5%) were above the income tax threshold at the time of completion of £12,571 (Table 2). Prior to being involved in the study, only 24.7% of respondents had heard of dark kitchens, mainly through their interactions on social media and online platforms, and only 9.1% had knowingly purchased from a dark kitchen restaurant. However, based on reading a working definition of dark kitchens, 54.9% of consumers said that they would purchase from a dark kitchen. The remaining participants would not purchase from a dark kitchen as they would prefer to see the establishment, know that they could see where their food was being prepared, or were dubious about hygiene standards and legality of such establishments. The majority (65.9%) of respondents would want to know explicitly whether they were ordering food from a dark kitchen.

Many participants purchase a takeaway at least once a week (n = 748, 31.7%) (Table 3), with a typical spend of up to £20 per purchase (Table 4). Purchases were often made using aggregator/third party mobile applications such as Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber Eats (51.3%) or brand-specific mobile application (e.g., through the McDonalds app) (28.6%). Most of these takeaway purchases (n = 1,911, 67.9%) were for adults within the household, whilst 16.7% (n = 471) of purchases were reported to be for children and young people in the household. A further 15.3% (n = 429) of purchases were for people outside of the household such as family, visitors and friends.

The most common reasons that people purchased from a takeaway were for a treat (79.3%), for enjoyment of the food or taste (60.8%) and for convenience (58.2%) (Table 5). Other reasons for purchasing a takeaway include being too tired or ill to cook, it was too late to start cooking, or to purchase foods that they could not prepare in the home (e.g., do not have the equipment or ingredients available). When ordering a takeaway, the most common considerations were the taste of the food (88.1%), quality of the food (83.5%), value for money (77.8%), familiarity with the business (68.1%) and reputation of the business (60.0%) (Table 6). Participants were less concerned with ethical standards of the food or business (9.1%), sustainability of the food or business (4.7%), provenance of ingredients (4.6%) and allergen control (4.2%). Other factors considered included availability of vegan, halal and gluten-free options.

The food hygiene rating of a business was considered by 47.3% of participants (Table 6); in line with this, 56.0% (n = 1,105) of participants reported they checked food hygiene ratings before they order from a takeaway. Of these, 93.7% (n = 1,033) stated the food hygiene rating would affect their willingness to purchase from the business, with many participants stating they would only order if the business received a rating of at least 4 out of 5. Low ratings were of concern due to perceived poor hygiene standards of the staff, poor hygiene training or the preparation of foods in an unhygienic environment, with some participants particularly concerned about the likelihood of food poisoning and associated symptoms. Participants also described how low hygiene ratings would also prevent them from enjoying the food and would reflect the quality of the food provided. However, some participants noted that the food hygiene rating is only relevant where they are unfamiliar with a business, and this would not matter if they had previously ordered from the business.

Discussion

As far as the researchers are aware, this is the first study to explore consumer knowledge and engagement with dark kitchens in a UK context. The research showed that awareness of dark kitchens was generally poor amongst UK consumers, although takeaway consumption and prevalence of takeaway purchasing was high, with over a third of consumers having takeaways at least once per week, spending around £20 per week. This is slightly higher, but comparable to the Living Costs and Food Survey (Office for National Statistics, 2017), which suggested that the amount spent on takeaway foods and snacks consumed per household ranged from £2.80 to £12.70 per week. Most takeaways were ordered by consumers using third-party aggregator apps such as Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber Eats or brand-specific apps to make purchases, rather than visiting the premises themselves. Whilst most consumers considered taste, quality, cost and familiarity with the business, few consumers had knowingly purchased from a dark kitchen and most would use a dark kitchen despite not being able to visit the premises. Therefore, whilst the awareness of dark kitchens was low, the prospective purchase was high which aligns with previous research conducted by Hakim et al. (2022) who found that consumers demonstrated an intention to buy food produced in dark kitchens, even if they did not know how to describe or define them.

In the present study, participants viewed the food hygiene rating of a food business – based on an inspection from local authority environmental health officers – as a proxy of food quality, where lower hygiene ratings are synonymous with lower quality foods. Food quality is a broad term which characterises aspects of foods that are important to governments, the food industry and consumers, including external factors (e.g., size, colour), internal factors (e.g., microbial load, foreign bodies, nutritional profile), texture and flavour (Tanner, 2016). As such, a large proportion of the sample did not want to purchase food from a dark kitchen due to concerns related to food hygiene and cleanliness standards, the compliance with organisational, legal and regulatory frameworks. These findings align with the Food and You Survey, which reported that consumers’ most common concerns were related to food safety and hygiene (33%) and food quality (29%) (Food Standards Agency, 2024). However, only 21% reported they had concerns with food, suggesting that the unknown nature of dark kitchens may increase consumer concern. This links with findings by Hakim et al., 2022 and Cai et al., 2022, who found better perceived food safety practices and trust in the food business determined consumers’ willingness to pay for food from dark kitchens. Cai et al. (2022) describe the link between personal and societal benefits or risks and participants’ high or low trust in a dark kitchen establishment, respectively. In the present work, more than half of the participants reported that they looked at food hygiene ratings prior to ordering food, and that the rating determined their willingness to purchase. This is higher than the 43% of respondents who reported checking food hygiene ratings of food businesses (either at the business premises or online) in the Food and You Survey (Food Standards Agency, 2024). However, this may be due to better accessibility of information on third-party online food delivery platforms. Similar to the present findings, the Food and You Survey found consumers would not consume food from a restaurant or takeaway with a food hygiene rating of zero to two. Likewise, Dsouza and Sharma (2021) surveyed consumers in India and found that post-COVID, consumers were increasingly conscious of food safety issues and recommended that safety ratings should be published to consumers.

As many dark kitchens are new, or unknown to consumers, the trust that individuals have in ordering food from these premises is variable. As a result, most respondents wanted to know whether they were ordering from a dark kitchen or a traditional takeaway restaurant for transparency. While the location of a business is available through aggregator apps, whether the business is a dark kitchen is not currently available to consumers. Aggregator and brand-specific apps should consider including information on whether the food is prepared in a dark kitchen, alongside clear food hygiene ratings, to ensure consumers are aware of the premises in which their food is being prepared and to enable informed purchasing decisions.

Conclusion

Participants frequently use takeaways and are familiar with aggregator websites and apps for ordering and tracking food purchases. However, consumers are unfamiliar with dark kitchens and are not aware of or confident in identifying which businesses are dark kitchens. In addition, trust in the food safety and hygiene standards of these businesses is variable. This results in dark kitchens being viewed in a negative light; consumers would prefer more transparency in where their foods are being prepared, and specifically whether this is being prepared in a dark kitchen, to allow for more informed decision making. As the dark kitchen sector continues to evolve, it is additionally important to capture the views of wider key stakeholders, such as those working in dark kitchens or regulating the sector.

Ethics and consent

All procedures underwent independent review by the Sheffield Hallam University research ethics committee and the application was approved on 06 February 2024 (ethics approval number: ER61546845). All participants provided written, informed consent. Procedures adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki.