When others operate your restaurant concept

When a local restaurant brand attracts the attention of an airport, an international operator or an investor, the offer is not only about more customers and higher revenue. Another organisation also gains influence over the people, ingredients and decisions that customers associate with your name.

This may happen through a franchise or licence, allowing another business to use the brand and its know-how. It may also involve an operating agreement, a joint venture, or the full or partial sale of the business to a restaurant group or private equity fund. These models differ legally, but they raise the same operational question: who has the practical authority and ability to protect quality?

A large partner can provide capital, attractive locations, purchasing power, recruitment and systems that the original owner could not secure alone. In return, the concept becomes part of a broader portfolio. Customers still see the brand name above the door, even when another organisation decides who is working, where employees come from and how much time they receive to learn the product.

It is not always franchising

The word franchise is often used for any arrangement in which someone else scales a restaurant brand. That obscures several important distinctions.

SSP and Avolta are examples of travel hospitality operators. They run numerous restaurants and cafés in airports, railway stations and other transport locations, using international brands, local brands and their own concepts. The local concept owner may act as licensor or franchisor, while the operator employs the staff and manages day-to-day operations.

Private equity funds and growth investors play a different role. General Atlantic became the majority owner of Joe & The Juice with a stated ambition to drive further international growth and expand franchise partnerships. McWin Food Ecosystem Fund acquired a majority stake in Sticks'n'Sushi in 2024, while NoHo Partners acquired 65 per cent of Halifax Burgers in 2025. These relationships concern ownership and growth strategy; they do not necessarily mean that the fund itself staffs each restaurant.

Operator, franchisee, licensee, restaurant group and private equity fund are not interchangeable terms. Before the risk can be assessed, it must be clear who owns the brand, who owns the restaurant and who employs the staff.

Airports show the model in concentrated form

Many familiar brands sit side by side at Copenhagen Airport, but the businesses behind the original restaurants do not necessarily operate them. Copenhagen Airport states, for example, that SSP manages a range of restaurants including Gorm's, Aamanns, O'Learys, Bistro Sommelier and Steff's Place. Gasoline Grill's own careers page describes the airport site as a franchised location, while a public job advert names SSP Denmark as the employer for a new Gasoline Grill at the airport.

Avolta states that it operates several outlets at the airport, including Copenhagen Coffee Lab, SMAG, Neighbourhood Pizza and Burger King. When Avolta opened Neighbourhood, the group described its interest in translating local brands into high-traffic locations. This demonstrates why local names are valuable to large operators. It does not document how individual outlets are staffed or how their quality performs in practice.

The risk is rarely that someone decides to damage the concept. It develops gradually: training is shortened, an experienced shift leader is moved elsewhere, an ingredient is replaced, or an extra employee is removed from the most expensive hours. Each change may appear minor within a large organisation. Together, they can turn the restaurant into a weaker version of what customers expected.

A verbal commitment does not protect a brand. Measurable requirements, access to data, regular inspections and agreed consequences when performance falls short do.

The same sign does not guarantee the same restaurant

Franchising and licensing are often sold on familiarity. But a recipe is only part of the product. The original restaurant may have long-serving employees, an owner close to the kitchen and a culture built through countless small corrections. That experience does not automatically travel with the sign above the door.

WIPO emphasises that the brand is central to a franchise and that a quality failure at one location can affect the entire chain. Its guide recommends manuals, training, and both scheduled and unannounced inspections. See In Good Company.

A study of restaurant and hotel chains found a negative relationship between the proportion of franchised locations and measured quality. This does not prove that franchising automatically lowers quality. It does support the need for more than good intentions when there is distance between the brand owner and day-to-day operations.

When an employee arrives from the neighbouring brand

When one operator runs several restaurants close together, it is natural to cover sickness, breaks and sudden queues with employees from another outlet. This can be efficient and preferable to leaving a restaurant understaffed. But a capable employee from the café next door is not automatically ready to represent a burger brand, a bistro or a specialist coffee concept.

The problem is not that the employee comes from another restaurant. It arises when they are assigned brand-critical tasks without product training, familiarity with the equipment or an understanding of the service promised to the customer. This can affect preparation, allergen handling, portion sizes, speed and product presentation.

No public information documents exactly how SSP or Avolta move employees between the brands mentioned here. This article therefore identifies a general risk associated with multi-brand operations; it does not allege a documented failure by any particular operator.

Flexible staffing may fill an urgent gap. It must not make brand-specific experience optional in the roles that determine product quality.

Training must be an ongoing capability, not an opening activity

General hospitality or airport experience is not the same as knowing how to deliver your particular product. Nor is a single training week before opening sufficient, because new employees and managers will join later. Research into franchise businesses identifies regular training as central to protecting culture, brand and reputation.

The concept owner can require a brand-certified manager on every shift, relevant experience in critical kitchen roles and practical approval before an employee works independently. A borrowed employee may help with restocking or handover without full certification, but should not automatically take over a role that determines flavour, food safety or customer guidance. Not everyone needs years of experience; every shift does need the right combination of skills.

Collective agreements and employment terms belong in the calculation

When the operator becomes the employer, its employment terms and any applicable collective agreement establish the framework for staff. The collective agreement is not the problem. The problem arises if the proposal is calculated on different terms from those that actually apply, leaving the resulting pressure to fall on fewer hours, less overlap and shorter training.

In a genuine transfer of an undertaking, employees and their existing terms may transfer with the business. The situation is different if the operator opens a new location and recruits an entirely new team. A specialist in employment law should assess the circumstances of the particular arrangement.

Can the operator cut staffing levels?

As a general rule, the employer plans staffing within the law, the applicable collective agreement and the contracts in place. If the franchise or licence agreement says nothing about staffing, competencies or service requirements, the concept owner may struggle to object simply because a shift feels too thinly staffed.

A fixed requirement for three employees throughout the day may be too rigid if demand changes significantly during opening hours. That does not mean the concept owner can only set targets for waiting time and revenue. It is both possible and relevant to agree the minimum experience and certifications that must be present on every shift.

A stronger staffing model combines workload with competence: minimum coverage during peak periods, a maximum queue or production time, break coverage, a brand-certified manager and at least one employee with documented experience in critical roles. The model should also establish when someone from another outlet may assist, which tasks they may perform, and when additional skilled staff must be called in.

The Danish Working Environment Authority describes excessive workload and time pressure as situations in which employees must work quickly or for extended periods to complete their tasks, for example at a consistently high pace or without adequate breaks. Understaffing can therefore affect more than customer waiting time. It may also undermine working conditions, cleaning, food safety and staff retention.

If the operator's financial model only works by removing the staffing required by the concept, the employees are not the problem. The business model has been priced incorrectly.

Royalties are income; the brand is the asset

In franchise and licence agreements, an ongoing royalty is often calculated as a percentage of an agreed revenue figure. Other arrangements may combine a revenue-based royalty with an initial fee, a minimum payment, fixed charges or marketing contributions. Denmark has no single standard rate that automatically suits restaurants. The terms depend on factors such as the strength of the brand, the required investment, exclusivity, the support provided and who carries the risk.

We use 4 per cent here as a simple illustration. If the agreed revenue base is DKK 10 million excluding VAT, this produces DKK 400,000 a year. The percentage is hypothetical and does not describe any agreement involving SSP, Avolta, Gasoline Grill or another named business.

The income must first be weighed against the work attached to it. The concept owner may be required to develop and update manuals, train new teams, approve ingredients, take part in openings, monitor operations and assist when quality falls short. The agreement should also define the revenue base precisely and assign the costs of training, inspection and corrective work.

The greatest risk rarely appears in the royalty statement. If a busy location delivers a weak version of the concept, customers still see the brand name. Poor experiences, reviews and images can damage trust in the original restaurants, make future partnerships more difficult and dilute the distinctiveness that made the brand attractive in the first place. A royalty can be valuable income, but payment alone cannot make an uncontrolled brand risk sensible.

The relevant calculation is not royalty income alone. It is income less support, monitoring and corrective work, considered alongside the potential impact on the value of the entire brand.

The owner should not become project manager for the larger partner

A concept owner does not need to write an entire franchise agreement, build an audit model or inspect every shift personally. That would transfer a disproportionate workload back to the smaller party and undermine part of the reason for choosing a professional operator.

The owner must, however, be able to explain what cannot be left unclear: Which parts of the product are critical to the brand? Which competencies must be present? Who may change recipes and ingredients? Which data must document performance? Who pays for training and corrective work? And when can permission to use the name be withdrawn?

The lawyer must translate rights, responsibilities and termination into a robust contract. The accountant must verify the definition of revenue and the financial model. Neither can determine alone how many active minutes a dish requires, when a queue reaches breaking point or whether a manual works during a busy shift. This is where restaurant-specific operational expertise becomes essential.

Monitoring should document the operator's performance, not become the owner's new full-time job

The operator should be responsible for documenting that the agreed standard is being delivered. The concept owner and its advisers should have access to the necessary information without standing in the restaurant every day.

Revenue alone is not enough. Training status, staff turnover, peak-period staffing, queue times, complaints and ingredient changes can reveal whether better financial results come from genuine improvement or from removing something customers actually value. Measures must be tailored to the concept; a burger outlet and a wine bar should not be audited against the same template.

Why a restaurant consultant should be involved before the agreement is signed

The owner often knows exactly when something tastes or feels wrong, but may not have translated that knowledge into practical training tests, time standards and control points. A restaurant consultant can map the core of the concept, calculate production and staffing requirements, test the operating model and follow up when promises meet everyday reality.

Gastroplan's restaurant consultants can act as the practical counterpart to the operator's operations team and translate deviations into action. Their role does not replace the lawyer or accountant; it helps ensure that the legal and financial foundation can also work in a kitchen, at a counter and during a busy shift.

Frequently asked questions

Can the operator use employees from another brand?

That depends on the employment arrangements and the agreement. Operationally, it may be sensible during sickness or peak demand. The concept owner can, however, require certain tasks to be performed only by employees with relevant experience, brand training or practical approval.

Can the agreement require a specific number of employees?

Yes, but a fixed number is rarely sufficient on its own. Minimum staffing during critical periods should be combined with requirements for experience, certification, queue times, production capacity, breaks and cleaning, so the agreement protects the outcome rather than merely a headcount.

How do you assess whether a royalty is attractive?

Not from the percentage alone. The royalty must be assessed alongside the revenue base, investment, exclusivity, support obligations, monitoring rights and risk to the rest of the brand. An attractive payment is not necessarily a good agreement if the concept owner also takes on extensive unpaid work or cannot intervene when quality fails.

Conclusion: you are not letting go; you must hold on in a different way

A professional operator, restaurant group or investor can give a small restaurant concept a reach the owner could never achieve alone. But capital, attractive locations and shared systems do not guarantee that the original quality will survive. The greater the distance between the concept owner and the employee serving the customer, the more important training, experience, data and control become.

The small business owner must not become the unpaid quality manager for a large organisation. The partner should document that the brand is being operated responsibly, while the owner's advisers help define what must not be lost. With a restaurant consultant, a lawyer and an accountant around the table, the promise of growth can become an operation that makes money while still deserving the name above the door.

Method and independence: This article is based on publicly available company websites, official guidance, collective-agreement material, industry guides and research. Gastroplan has not received payment from any of the businesses or organisations mentioned. SSP, Avolta, Gasoline Grill, Joe & The Juice, Sticks'n'Sushi and Halifax are included solely as public examples of different ownership and operating models. The article does not assess their specific agreements, internal movement of staff, staffing levels or quality. Financial calculations are illustrative and do not describe named agreements. This article provides general operational information and is not legal, employment-law or investment advice relating to any particular agreement.

When someone else operates your restaurant concept