From Taverns to Platform Dining: The Historical Evolution of Restaurants and Their Continuing Transformation

Aug 2, 2024
20 min read

Updated: 2 days ago

Author: Amjad Abdullah

Affiliation: ISB Management Training Institute, Dubai

ORCID iD: 0009-0007-1830-2989

Received 9 May 2024; Received 24 June 2024; Accepted 9 July 2024; Available online 2 August 2024; Version of Record 2 August 2024.

Volume 1, December 2024, (10007)

https://doi.org/10.65326/u7y566872

Abstract

Restaurants are more than just places of food service. They are adaptive institutional forms shaped through strategic interaction, technological mediation and governance pressures. This study examines the transformation of restaurants from taverns, inns and local dining rooms to platform-mediated systems where menus, demand, reputation, logistics, payment, labour and visibility are increasingly organised through digital infrastructures. Drawing on a conceptual and historical-interpretive methodology supported by recent scholarship in hospitality, food systems, digital platforms and AI governance, the article contends that restaurant evolution has never been a straightforward transition from tradition to modernity. Instead, restaurants have continually responded to new coordination problems: the management of mobility, the ordering of public hospitality, the scaling of service, the standardization of quality, the governance of risk, and the strategic dependence produced by digital platforms. The article puts forward six theoretical propositions: restaurants as adaptive social institutions, strategic coordination sites, market actors dependent on platforms, resilient crisis-response systems, spaces for sustainability governance, and AI-mediated service environments. Its threefold contribution is to reframe restaurant history in terms of institutional adaptation; to connect restaurant transformation to game theory and strategic interdependence; and to locate platform dining as an everyday site of AI governance. This argument is important to scholarship in hospitality, strategic studies, food-system research and governance debates about technology, markets and social institutions.

Keywords: restaurant history; platform dining; hospitality transformation; digital restaurants; online food delivery; game theory; strategic studies; AI governance; sustainability; institutional adaptation

1. Introduction

Restaurants are familiar institutions, but that familiarity can mask their complexity. A restaurant is a commercial enterprise, a hospitality setting, a labour system, a cultural space, a logistics node and increasingly a digital interface. It sustains people but also structures time, status, trust, mobility, social contact and everyday consumption. The transition from taverns and inns to restaurants, chains, fast food, online food delivery, and algorithmic dining platforms, therefore, is not just a story about food. It is a story of how societies manage public eating in changing conditions of economy, technology, risk and governance.

Restaurant history is not only a history of changing dining forms. The main argument presented here is that the evolution of restaurants can be interpreted as a series of institutional responses to recurring coordination problems. Travelers needed dependable supply on the road. The urban consumer needed public dining to be visible, safe and socially legitimate spaces. Industrial societies required scalability and standardized quality. Today’s customers want convenience, traceability, speed and digital access. In each period, restaurants developed arrangements that reduced uncertainty among providers, workers, diners, suppliers, regulators, and intermediaries.

This framing is significant because the modern restaurant is no longer governed solely by the relationship of host and guest. Platform dining now connects restaurants to delivery apps, payment systems, rating systems, search algorithms, cloud kitchens, third-party logistics, influencer visibility and data analytics. Recent studies show that digital transformation affects restaurant productivity, competitiveness, and organizational processes (Lee, Jang, & Kim, 2024; Alt, 2021; Martín-Martín, Maya García, & Romero, 2022). Online food delivery has also been incorporated into urban food-system resilience during times of crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic (Wang et al., 2022). These developments are changing not just how restaurants sell food, but also how they compete, cooperate and maintain market visibility.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only hastened this transformation. Indoor dining restrictions, public anxiety about contamination, disrupted supply chains, labour insecurity, and rapidly shifting consumer behaviour meant restaurants had to adapt quickly. Studies on restaurant demand, consumer risk perception, financial recovery, employee well-being, and operator resilience indicate that the pandemic was not just an interruption to restaurant activity, but also a catalyst for structural change that was already underway (Yang, Liu, & Chen, 2020; Byrd et al., 2021; Yost, Kizildag, & Ridderstaat, 2021; Bufquin et al., 2021; Brizek et al., 2021). Restaurants able to leverage digital capacity, operational agility, trust-building practices and cost control were better positioned to ride out uncertainty.

Therefore, the article asks the following research question: How can the historical evolution of restaurants be theorized as a process of institutional adaptation, strategic interaction, and platform governance? This article constructs an interpretive conceptual synthesis to answer this question. It does not seek to provide a statistical test or a complete global history. Instead, it uses recent research to update a historically oriented theory of restaurant transformation, focusing in particular on platform dining and AI-mediated governance.

The article makes a contribution to three fields. For restaurant and hospitality studies, it offers a theoretical account of restaurants as adaptive institutions. For game theory and strategic studies, it shows how restaurant transformation is shaped by interdependent decisions among restaurants, customers, platforms, regulators, workers, and suppliers. It argues that platform dining is a tangible everyday example for AI governance where algorithmic ranking, recommendation, pricing, delivery allocation, reputation systems and data extraction influence market access and institutional autonomy.

2. Research Gap and Contribution

While the existing body of research in restaurant management is rich, it is also fragmented. Historical studies tend to focus on the rise of public dining, the professionalization of cooking, and the proliferation of restaurant formats. Research in hospitality management is mainly focused on service quality, consumer behavior, technology acceptance, crisis recovery or operational performance. Resilience, supply chains, health & sustainability are the main focus of food systems research. AI governance studies examine national strategies, institutional arrangements, accountability, and regulatory architectures. These bodies of work are valuable but they rarely speak to each other in a single theoretical frame.

The first gap is conceptual. The history of the restaurant is often narrated as a sequence of formats: tavern, inn, café, restaurant, hotel dining room, fast food outlet, chain restaurant, casual dining, ghost kitchen and platform outlet. This account, being format-based, is useful, but it does not capture the deeper institutional logic that links these forms. The present paper addresses this gap by framing restaurant evolution as a recurrent response to coordination problems of trust, choice, mobility, quality, efficiency, and legitimacy.

The second gap is strategic. Restaurants are often seen as service providers responding to consumer demand but modern restaurants exist in strategic ecosystems. Pricing, menu design, delivery fees, platform participation, labour scheduling, sustainability claims, data sharing and customer communication are all interrelated choices. A restaurant’s success depends on decisions made by platforms, customers, regulators, competitors, deliverers, and suppliers. While research on online food delivery platforms is beginning to suggest such interdependencies (Niu, Li, Mu, Chen, & Ji, 2021; Jiao, Zhao, & Li, 2023), restaurant history has not yet fully integrated this game-theoretic logic.

The third gap is governance. Platform dining is increasingly driven by algorithmic systems that decide restaurant rankings, delivery times, meal suggestions, order distribution, review processing and the disciplining of market participants via visibility. Research on AI governance has informed key debates on institutional fragmentation, national strategies, organizational governance, and global regulatory arrangements (Cihon, Maas, & Kemp, 2020; Taeihagh, 2021; Radu, 2021; Birkstedt, Minkkinen, Tandon, & Mäntymäki, 2023; Tallberg et al., 2023). But daily consumer sectors like restaurants are underused as empirical and conceptual sites for understanding AI governance in mundane markets.

This study addresses these gaps by proposing that restaurants should be examined as adaptive social institutions embedded in strategic and algorithmic governance environments. This does not mean that restaurants should be reduced to technology businesses. Instead, it safeguards the hospitality dimension by demonstrating the strategic importance of human-centered service, trust, atmosphere and cultural meaning in an ever more digital operating environment.

3. Background and Theoretical Framework

3.1 Restaurants as social institutions for adaptation

The restaurant is an institution because it stabilizes expectations about eating in public. Diners expect the food to be prepared safely, the prices to be transparent, the food to be served in a timely way and the food to be eaten in a socially acceptable environment. Operators want to get paid, want to see rules observed and want some predictability in demand. Staff want routines, role clarity and pay. These expectations are never perfect, but restaurants build ordered environments in which food, service, payment, status and trust are arranged.

Historically the forms of the restaurant solved various institutional problems. The problem of feeding the mobile was solved by taverns and inns. Urban restaurants addressed the problem of dining in public for individuals. Cafés and bistros solved the problem of accessible sociability. Fine dining fixed the problem of status and cultural distinction. Fast food addressed the problems of speed, affordability, and standardization. Platform dining now seeks to address the challenge of convenience in fragmented urban time. Each solution creates new tensions, too. Efficiency can subvert hospitality. Standardization risks endangering local diversity. Platform dining may increase reliance on external intermediaries.

3.2 Strategic interdependence and game theory

Game theory is relevant here not because restaurant actors think like a formal model, but because interdependent decisions lead to restaurant outcomes. If a platform increases commissions, restaurants may respond by raising prices, reducing variety, exiting the platform, or absorbing the cost. Customers may react to delivery fees, discount, rating and forecasted delivery time. Delivery workers can choose to accept or decline orders based on pay and distance. Regulators might cap fees, labour protections, hygiene rules or data obligations. No single actor fully controls the outcome.

This logic is exemplified by online food delivery. Restaurants interact with platforms for visibility and demand but can also give away margin, customer ownership, and operational control. Niu et al. (2021) demonstrate the importance of comparing platform logistics and self-logistics considering profitability and sustainability. Jiao et al. (2023) explore interactions among stakeholders in online food delivery service platforms. The findings of these studies support a strategic reading of restaurants as players in multi-sided markets rather than isolated service outlets.

3.3 Resilience and vulnerability, strategic studies

Strategic studies is about power, uncertainty, vulnerability, competition, adaptation, and the management of interdependence. Such concerns are not confined to military or state environments. They also extend into industries that provide essential social services in crises. Restaurants are part of the urban food access, employment, social life, tourism, and local economic resilience. COVID-19 made visible the institution of the restaurant as vulnerable and adaptive. In some contexts demand collapsed, in others it moved online, and in all contexts it depended on public trust in safety measures (Yang et al., 2020; Byrd et al., 2021).

Studies of food systems reinforce this point. The pandemic has exposed vulnerabilities in food supply chains and household food access (Aday & Aday, 2020; Garnett, Doherty, & Heron, 2020; Fan, Teng, Chew, Smith, & Copeland, 2021). The role of online food delivery platforms in building resilience in China’s urban food system during COVID-19 (Wang et al., 2022), and more general studies of dietary affordability, food policy and food consumption demonstrate the influence of shocks on food consumption and access (Laborde et al., 2021; Lowe et al., 2021; O’Connell, Smith & Stroud, 2022). Thus, restaurants are part of the strategic infrastructure of everyday life.

3.4 Governance and dining on the AI platform

AI governance is the set of institutions, rules, procedures, and accountability mechanisms that shape, constrain, and evaluate artificial intelligence systems. Platform dining also brings up governance questions, which manifest in ranking algorithms, automated dispatch, reputation systems, personalization, demand prediction, pricing tools and data-driven operational decisions. These systems define who is visible, who is rewarded, who assumes risk, and who can seek recourse when automated decisions cause harm.

The literature on AI governance is focused on fragmentation, national strategy, organizational implementation, and global institutional design (Cihon et al., 2020; Taeihagh, 2021; Radu, 2021; Birkstedt et al., 2023; Tallberg et al., 2023). Zhang, Yue and Fang (2023) put forward a game-theoretic framework for AI governance, where regulators and firms are viewed as strategic actors. This perspective is suitable for platform dining, as restaurants, platforms and regulators also interact strategically. The governance problem is not just whether an algorithm works, but whether the institutional arrangement around the algorithm produces fair, transparent and accountable outcomes.

4. Methodology

The methodology of this article is conceptual historical-interpretive. It is not a quantitative empirical study and does not purport to statistically test causal hypotheses. Its aim is theory refinement: to reframe the evolution of restaurants through the joint lenses of institutional adaptation, strategic interdependence and AI/platform governance.

The article uses abductive reasoning analytically. It oscillates between historical interpretation and current theory to generate plausible, coherent and researchable propositions. Abduction is appropriate when the goal is to explain a pattern that has been observed, by constructing a more powerful conceptual frame. These are patterns of restaurants being reinvented under the changing economic, social, technological and governance conditions. The explanation advanced here is that restaurants survive because they solve coordination problems while still performing a recognizable hospitality function.

5. Analysis: From Taverns to Platform Dining

5.1 From provision to choice

The earliest public eating houses were mainly provision systems. They served travelers, laborers, traders and the local public who required food cooked out of their own homes. Their institutional logic was pragmatic: availability, shelter, drink, basic food, and sociability. The modern restaurant introduced a new logic: individual choice. The menu, the single table, the elastic hours of service, the public exhibition of cooking altered the diner from a recipient of provision to a chooser of dishes.

This transition remains fundamental to the restaurant form. Choice creates both value and complexity. Restaurants must balance variety, inventory, labour, pricing, quality and customer expectation. Therefore, the history of the development of restaurants may be read as the increasing sophistication of the management of choice. Fine dining organized choice through status and technique. Fast food chose speed and predictability by reducing choice. Digital platforms massively increase visible choice, but algorithmically organize attention.

5.2 From local hospitality to scalable systems

The rise of industry and the cities meant more eating away from home. Restaurants, cafés, bistros, hotel dining rooms and later chains responded to new patterns of work, transport and urban time. The twentieth century accelerated the process through branding, franchising, logistics, refrigeration, standard operating procedures and mass marketing. Restaurants became scalable systems.

Quality changed meaning with scalability. Quality might be a function of acquaintance and immediate social trust in a local tavern. In chain or platform environment quality depends on repeatable procedures, measurable performance and reputation systems. Digital transformation continues this movement by enhancing the visibility and comparability of performance. Lee et al. (2024) link digital transformation to productivity in the restaurant industry, whereas Alt (2021) and Martín-Martín et al. (2022) focus on the wider managerial and organizational implications of digitalization.

5.3 Platform dining and the new visibility problem

Platform dining transforms how restaurant visibility is produced and controlled. In a street-based market, visibility is a function of location, signage, reputation, local knowledge and social networks. In a platform market, visibility is driven by search ranking, customer ratings, promotional payments, delivery radius, estimated time, photographs, menu structure and algorithmic recommendation. The restaurant may remain physically local, but become digitally dependent.

This dependency creates a strategic dilemma. Platforms bring demand, data infrastructure, payment systems and logistical reach. At the same time, they can charge commissions, control customer interfaces, shift risks to restaurants and workers, and influence market discovery. Thus, the restaurant's decision to join or leave a platform is not a simple technology adoption decision. It is a strategic choice in case of dependence. Niu et al. (2021) show the restaurant’s comparison between platform logistics and self-logistics under the conditions of profitability and sustainability. Jiao et al. (2023) show that stakeholder timing and behavior in online food delivery platforms impact system outcomes.

5.4 Pandemic shock and accelerated adaptation

COVID-19 was a stress test for the restaurant institution. The conditions of restaurant operation were sharply changed by stay-at-home orders, consumer fear, capacity limits, labour shortages and supply disruptions. Early effects of pandemic restrictions on restaurant demand are demonstrated by Yang et al. (2020). According to Byrd et al. (2021), risk perceptions of consumers were extended to restaurant food and packaging as well. The mental health and career impacts experienced by restaurant workers during the pandemic are described by Bufquin et al. (2021). These studies show that restaurant resilience is not just about money. It is also psychological, organisational and relational.

Recovery required a strategic flexibility. Yost et al. (2021) discuss financial recovery strategies in the US restaurant industry. Brizek et al. (2021) report on independent restaurant operator perspectives after the pandemic. Neise et al. (2021) study resilience of the German restaurant and bar industry. Sobaih, Elshaer, Hasanein, and Abdelaziz (2021) link small hospitality enterprise resilience to sustainable tourism development. Taken together, these studies support a view of restaurants as adaptive systems rather than passive victims of crisis.

The pandemic has also accelerated online ordering, delivery, payment and contactless customer communication. Online food delivery platforms contributed to the resilience of China’s urban food system (Wang et al., 2022). Choi et al. (2023) demonstrate that information technology can serve as a buffer against shocks from COVID-19 in the tourism and hospitality industry. These results do not imply that digitalization is the solution to all problems in the restaurant industry. Instead, they show that digital capacity became a strategic resource when physical dining was restricted.

5.5 Sustainability, food systems, and institutional responsibility

Sustainability is also driving the transformation of restaurants. Restaurants are at the intersection of food sourcing, energy use, waste, packaging, labor, health and consumer education. The pandemic has laid bare the fragility of food systems and raised questions about diet, supply-chain resilience and affordability. Aday and Aday (2020) study the impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Garnett et al. (2020) demonstrate how the UK food supply chain was exposed by the pandemic. Fan et al. (2021) draw lessons from Asian food-system resilience, while Carducci et al. (2021) examine food systems, diets, and nutrition in the post-COVID-19 period.

Sustainability is not just an ethical label for restaurants. This is a governance question because restaurants need to decide how to make tradeoffs between costs, consumer willingness to pay, relations with suppliers, food waste reduction, packaging, and regulatory expectations. Delivery platforms further increase this complexity by adding packaging and logistics requirements. So, platform dining makes sustainability a strategic and institutional problem, not a narrow environmental preference.

5.6 AI-mediated hospitality and the governance of everyday markets

AI-powered hospitality does not have to be humanoid robots or fully automated restaurants. It shows up more often in less visible systems: recommendation engines, demand prediction, dynamic pricing, menu optimization, route allocation, customer segmentation, review filtering, fraud detection, labour scheduling. These tools can increase efficiency, but they also shape opportunity. A restaurant that drops in platform ranking may lose demand without knowing why. A delivery worker could end up with fewer lucrative orders if there’s an opaque system of allocation. Personalization can nudge the customer to particular meals or brands.

This is where restaurant studies can help with AI governance. AI governance should not be restricted to high-risk laboratories, defense systems, or national policy frameworks. Everyday sectors exhibit the rule of algorithmic systems in mundane markets. Taeihagh (2021) and Radu (2021) demonstrate that AI governance is a matter of institutional arrangements and public-private ordering. Cihon et al. (2020) and Tallberg et al. (2023) demonstrate that global AI governance poses issues of fragmentation, power, legitimacy and institutional design. Birkstedt et al. (2023) observe that there are knowledge gaps in organizational AI governance. Platform dining offers a tangible setting in which to observe these abstract questions in the quotidian economic life.

6. Findings and Theoretical Propositions

The analysis produces six theoretical propositions. They are not statistical findings; they are theory-building statements intended for future empirical testing.

Table 1. Theoretical propositions derived from the analysis

Proposition	Core claim	Research implication
P1: Institutional adaptation	Restaurants do not follow a linear model of modernization. They survive by adapting to recurrent coordination problems.	Future work may look at how different restaurant formats respond to the issues of trust, choice, speed, safety and legitimacy.
P2: Strategic interdependence	The results in restaurants depend on interdependent decisions of restaurants, customers, platforms, workers, suppliers and regulators.	Game-theoretic models can be applied to studying commissions, platform participation, pricing, delivery logistics and regulatory intervention.
P3: Platform dependence	Platform dining expands market access but creates new dependence on algorithmic visibility, customer data and third-party logistics.	Research should measure the trade-off between increased demand and loss of autonomy across restaurant segments.
P4: Resilience capability	The resilience of a crisis is defined by digital capacity, financial flexibility, labour stability, consumer trust and local embeddedness.	Empirical work can test which combinations of capabilities predict survival and recovery after shock.
P5: Sustainability as governance	Restaurant sustainability governance issues include sourcing, waste, packaging, platform incentives, affordability and consumer norms.	Future research should treat sustainability as a multi-actor coordination problem, not a moral choice of a single firm.
P6: Everyday AI governance	Platform dining is an everyday AI-governance laboratory, as algorithmic ranking, recommendation, pricing and logistics shape market opportunity.	Restaurants provide a tangible domain to study fairness, transparency, accountability, and redress in AI governance.

Note. The propositions are the result of the conceptual analysis and are intended to serve as a foundation for future empirical testing in hospitality, platform economy and AI governance research.

7. Discussion

7.1 Contribution to restaurant and hospitality studies

The article contributes to the study of restaurants and hospitality by moving beyond a descriptive history of formats. It maintains that restaurants should be viewed as adaptive social institutions that solve coordination problems in dynamic environments. This approach acknowledges the co-existence of very different forms of restaurant. Fine dining, fast food, local cafés, cloud kitchens and platform-based delivery outlets are not just steps in a hierarchy of progress. They are different institutional answers to different coordination needs. This view also helps explain why technology cannot substitute for hospitality. Technology can bring down search costs, improve logistics, increase productivity and promote resilience, but hospitality is still about trust, care, atmosphere, service judgment and cultural meaning. Thus, restaurant transformation is not merely about automation, but rather about recombining operational systems with human-centric service.

7.2 Contribution to game theory

The paper contributes to the literature on game theory by recognizing the restaurant sector as a useful domain to study strategic interdependence in platform-mediated markets. Traditional restaurant studies tend to analyze firms, consumers or employees independently. A game-theoretic approach asks how the best response of one actor depends on the choices of other actors. This is particularly true of online food delivery, where platforms set fees and ranking rules, restaurants decide whether and how to participate, customers respond to price and convenience, and regulators decide whether intervention is needed.

The proposed framework does not reduce hospitality to mathematical abstractions. Instead, it is game theory that accounts for conflict, cooperation, dependence and bargaining. For example, commissions on platforms may create a prisoner’s-dilemma-like situation: individual restaurants may feel obliged to join platforms even if collective dependence reduces margins, because competitors are there. Dynamic pricing and promotions can lead to repeated games between restaurants and consumers. Regulatory fee caps can alter the pay-off structure between platforms and restaurants. These examples show that restaurant transformation is shaped by systematic strategic interaction.

7.3 Contribution to strategic studies

The article contributes to strategic studies by showing that restaurants are part of the everyday resilience infrastructure. High-end security, competition and technological power are often talked about in strategic studies. But the pandemic showed that access to food, urban service systems, labour continuity and consumer confidence are also strategic issues. Restaurants are vulnerable to shocks, but also contribute to shock absorption through food access, employment, social continuity and local economic activity.

This is not a metaphorical contribution. Restaurant systems depend on supply chains, transport networks, digital infrastructure, public-health policy, labour availability and consumer confidence. These systems break down and restaurants become sites where greater vulnerabilities are felt. The study of restaurant adaptation can thus contribute to strategic studies by connecting macro-level resilience with micro-level institutional practice.

7.4 Contribution to AI governance

The article shifts the conversation on AI governance from abstract regulatory principles to the day-to-day functioning of algorithmic markets. AI and algorithmic systems determine visibility, demand, delivery allocation, customer choice and reputation in platform dining. These systems may seem routine but they affect livelihoods and market structure. The governance questions are thus practical: Who can understand rules of ranking? Can restaurants challenge unfair visibility losses? How are the ratings filtered? How do delivery workers share risk? How are consumer and restaurant data collected, used, shared, and governed?

Research on AI governance often focuses on national strategies, international institutions or organizational principles. These levels are still needed, but platform dining shows that governance also takes place through mundane infrastructures. For a restaurant, where it ranks in a platform ranking might matter more to its daily survival than a national AI strategy. AI governance thus needs to link macro-level policy to sector-level accountability and operational practice at the firm-level.

8. Limitations and Future Research

The propositions can be extended in future research in a number of ways. By comparing case studies we can examine the different ways in which platform dependence impacts independent restaurants, chains, ghost kitchens, and fine-dining establishments. Quantitative studies could explore the extent to which digital capabilities are predictive of resilience after shocks. Platform commission structures, restaurant participation and regulatory interventions can be studied using game-theoretic models. Ethnographic research can investigate how chefs, managers, delivery workers and customers experience algorithmic systems in practice. Platform dining is a vehicle for AI governance studies to explore transparency, explainability, accountability, and appeal mechanisms in everyday consumer markets. Finally, sustainability research can examine the interaction of platform logistics, packaging, food waste and consumer convenience within urban dining systems.

9. Conclusion

Restaurants have transformed from functional sites of supply into sophisticated institutions that mediate choice, service, trust, mobility, status, labour, logistics and digital visibility. Their history is not a line of progression from tavern to tech. It is a repetitive process of adjusting to new problems of coordination.

The article’s main contribution is to reinterpret the evolution of restaurants through three connected lenses. Institutions like restaurants survive because they evolve, keeping intact the social purpose of hospitality. Restaurants are strategically embedded in interdependent systems of customers, platforms, workers, suppliers, competitors, and regulators. Platform dining is a good example in governance terms of how AI and algorithmic systems are increasingly shaping ordinary markets through ranking, recommendation, pricing, logistics and reputation.

The future of restaurants will therefore depend on more than innovation. It will depend on whether restaurants can blend digital efficiency with human trust, platform access with institutional autonomy, sustainability with affordability, and automation with accountable governance. The restaurant continues to be a space in which to eat, but also a revealing site for the study of how society orders service, strategy, and technology in everyday life.

References

Aday, S., & Aday, M. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa024
Alt, R. (2021). Digital transformation in the restaurant industry: Current developments and implications. Journal of Smart Tourism, 1(1), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.52255/smarttourism.2021.1.1.9
Birkstedt, T., Minkkinen, M., Tandon, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2023). AI governance: Themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas. Internet Research, 33(7), 133-167. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2022-0042
Brizek, M. G., Frash, R. E., McLeod, B. M., & Patience, M. O. (2021). Independent restaurant operator perspectives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102766
Bufquin, D., Park, J.-Y., Back, R. M., de Souza Meira, J. V., & Hight, S. K. (2021). Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102764
Byrd, K., Her, E., Fan, A., Almanza, B., Liu, Y., & Leitch, S. (2021). Restaurants and COVID-19: What are consumers’ risk perceptions about restaurant food and its packaging during the pandemic? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102821
Carducci, B., Keats, E. C., Ruel, M., Haddad, L., Osendarp, S. J. M., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2021). Food systems, diets and nutrition in the wake of COVID-19. Nature Food, 2, 68-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00233-9
Choi, S., Yeon, J., Song, H. J., & Hu, J. (2023). Information technology as a buffer against COVID-19. Annals of Tourism Research, 98, 103527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103527
Cihon, P., Maas, M. M., & Kemp, L. (2020). Fragmentation and the future: Investigating architectures for international AI governance. Global Policy, 11(5), 545-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890
Fan, S., Teng, P., Chew, P., Smith, G., & Copeland, L. (2021). Food system resilience and COVID-19: Lessons from the Asian experience. Global Food Security, 28, 100501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100501
Garnett, P., Doherty, B., & Heron, T. (2020). Vulnerability of the United Kingdom's food supply chains exposed by COVID-19. Nature Food, 1, 315-318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0097-7
Jiao, T., Zhao, X., & Li, X. (2023). The sooner, the better? Interactions of stakeholders in online food delivery service platforms. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(5), 1134-1156. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2022-0039
Laborde, D., Herforth, A., Headey, D., & de Pee, S. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic leads to greater depth of unaffordability of healthy and nutrient-adequate diets in low- and middle-income countries. Nature Food, 2, 473-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00323-8
Lee, W., Jang, S. S., & Kim, H. S. (2024). The effect of digital transformation: Boosting productivity in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 123, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103896
Lowe, M., Nadhanael, G. V., & Roth, B. N. (2021). India's food supply chain during the pandemic. Food Policy, 105, 102162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102162
Martín-Martín, D., Maya García, J., & Romero, I. (2022). Determinants of digital transformation in the restaurant industry. Amfiteatru Economic, 24(60), 430-446. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2022/60/430
Neise, T., Verfürth, P., & Franz, M. (2021). Rapid responding to the COVID-19 crisis: Assessing the resilience in the German restaurant and bar industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 102960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102960
Niu, B., Li, Q., Mu, Z., Chen, L., & Ji, P. (2021). Platform logistics or self-logistics? Restaurants’ cooperation with online food-delivery platform considering profitability and sustainability. International Journal of Production Economics, 234, 108064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108064
O’Connell, M., Smith, K., & Stroud, R. (2022). The dietary impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Economics, 84, 102641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102641
Radu, R. (2021). Steering the governance of artificial intelligence: National strategies in perspective. Policy and Society, 40(2), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1929728
Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I., Hasanein, A. M., & Abdelaziz, A. S. (2021). Responses to COVID-19: The role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824
Taeihagh, A. (2021). Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society, 40(2), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377
Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., Geith, J., Klamberg, M., & Lundgren, M. (2023). The global governance of artificial intelligence: Next steps for empirical and normative research. International Studies Review, 25(3), viad040. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad040
Wang, X., Zhao, F., Tian, X., Min, S., von Cramon-Taubadel, S., Huang, J., & Fan, S. (2022). How online food delivery platforms contributed to the resilience of the urban food system in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Food Security, 35, 100658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100658
Yang, Y., Liu, H., & Chen, X. (2020). COVID-19 and restaurant demand: Early effects of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(12), 3809-3834. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2020-0504
Yost, E., Kizildag, M., & Ridderstaat, J. (2021). Financial recovery strategies for restaurants during COVID-19: Evidence from the US restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 47, 408-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.04.012
Zhang, N., Yue, K., & Fang, C. (2023). A game-theoretic framework for AI governance. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.14865