Institutional decision-makers (such as schools and hospitals) are challenged to feed large numbers of people while meeting minimum nutrition standards set forth by various government entities. Because these institutions operate with constrained budgets and use buying centers, they often choose food vendors based on the lowest cost bids. However, in California, choosing vendors on costs alone is no longer standard operating procedure. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest school district in the United States, supplies meals for more than 650,000 students. The most basic tenet of the district’s procurement services division mission is to provide good but cost-effective, nutritious meals at LAUSD schools. At the same time, however, California’s public institutions must support at least two other statewide initiatives. First, the California Office of the Small Business Advocate (CalOSBA) requires that the district consider vendor race, gender, and other factors in its purchasing decisions. It seeks to increase the number of suppliers statewide that identify as being in a racial minority or as women, disabled, and veterans. Second, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (GWSA) requires public agencies to slow down climate change by reducing greenhouse emissions. Thus, the choice of vendors requires LAUSD procurement officers to incorporate not just nutritional considerations but also costs, diversity, and environmental impact when managing the food and food services buyer process.

What are the ethical considerations of prioritizing the four decision criteria: providing good nutritional meals, keeping procurement costs low, supporting CalOSBA’s initiative, and abiding by the GWSA law?