For the past 124 years, the Michelin Guide has wielded massive power and influence over the restaurant world – but foodies are now calling its credibility into question.

Getting a star (or better yet, three) from the revered firm, an expert in the culinary world, is the highest accolade a restaurant can be awarded and chefs dream of them, whether they admit it or not.

But in recent years, the fine dining bible has faced controversy over its once-unimpeachable system for ranking restaurants.

Many have accused it of accepting millions of dollars from tourism boards all over the world, and favouring venues that agree to brand deals. The concerns brought up by critics have been somewhat addressed by Michelin, which maintains that the decision to give stars is a fully independent one.

The guide was first published in France in 1900 and expanded to cover the rest of Europe and the UK over the next century.

In 2005, it came out with its first American guide that ranked restaurants in New York City and several years later, moved on to include Hong Kong and Macau.

In the world of modern dining filled with influencers and TikTok reviewers, however, the guide – initially relying on physical sales of its famous red books – has suffered with costs.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, restaurant critic Andy Hayler said that once the internet began absorbing customers into the digital sphere, sales of physical copies steeply declined.

A 2011 report by The Financial Times claimed that it was losing more than $24 million a year, with the figure projected to rise to $30 million in 2015.

And in a recent interview, Gwendal Poullennec, international director of the Michelin Guide, even admitted that continuing to print in ‘historical countries’ is ‘negligible for our economic model’.

But there was a lucrative revenue stream waiting in the wings – partnerships within regional tourism industries eager to promote their countries’ restaurants and boost economies.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, boards in Thailand, SingaporeMalaysia, individual American states, the UAE, Israel, and beyond have commissioned Guides from Michelin, many hoping to inject the brand’s prestige into their dining sectors.

The Korea Tourism Organisation reportedly paid more than $1 million to commission the guide over a period of four years. It was released for the first time in Seoul in 2016, with a total of 29 Michelin stars awarded to 24 restaurants.

Elsewhere, CNN reported in 2017 that the Tourism Authority of Thailand allegedly shelled out 144 million Thai baht ($4.4 million) for its partnership with Michelin – resulting in stars being awarded to 17 restaurants.

While the brand does not hide the fact that these partnerships are now a main source of revenue for the guide, most payments remain undisclosed or unconfirmed.

‘The key thing is that these partnerships present a potential conflict of interest,’ Andy, who became the first person to dine at every single three-star Michelin restaurant in the world by 2018, told the Daily Mail.

‘Michelin has a reputation for independence and honesty, and for not being bought, essentially.

‘That’s why the guide is so highly regarded. But as soon as you start taking large payments from tourist boards, that barrier starts to break down.

‘They’re not going to take $2 million from anywhere in the world, and then send inspectors there, stick them in hotels for a few weeks, try all the restaurants and then at the end of the process, go, “Really sorry, thanks for the two million dollars but unfortunately all your restaurants are pretty ordinary, so we’re not going to give you any stars”.

‘These tourism boards are going to want something back for that money. They’re going to want a bunch of stars, and then what you find is, mysteriously, that’s exactly what happens.’

The same criticism has been levelled at Michelin Guide by Yiting Deng, an academic at the University College London School of Management.

Following the guide’s decision to launch a hotel ranking system as well as a wine ranking system as it continues to expand globally, Yiting told The Times: ‘If they work too much with governments, travel agencies and other related parties, there will be this question about credibility and how much their decisions are influenced by other parties.’

Chef Thomas Frakewho won MasterChef in 2020, also pointed to how vastly different the judging criteria between countries can appear on the outset.

‘There are street food stalls in Vietnam that have one Michelin star, compared to restaurants in centuries-old buildings in London that work with a brigade of chefs,’ he said.

‘That is confusing for a diner to really understand how that comparison can be made, particularly as most diners expect Michelin starred restaurants to look and feel a certain way.

‘But if you know the fundamental criteria for Michelin stars, which are really about the chef and their personality, the consistency and the quality of he ingredients, there’s no reason why one chef behind a stall cannot deliver as well as a brigade operating in a restaurant.

‘It’s about how Michelin shares that knowledge and information, and how they manage the expectations of the diners.’

Others are more sympathetic to the guide’s financial dilemmas. It is still a business, after all, said former Michelin Guide inspector Chris Watson – as he defended the guide’s decisions.

‘The Michelin Guide’s contribution to the country’s economy is significant. Obviously, they are paid to do it, but they undoubtedly raise the country’s profile as a culinary destination and that is very valuable to tourism boards,’ he explained.

‘I think that Michelin will make their decision on the sophistication of the dining scene (of the respective countries that have approached them) as to whether it will actually ever be able to support a one-star, two-star or even three-star restaurant.’

Meanwhile, Renae Smith, who has worked in global food PR for 13 years, told the Daily Mail: ‘Michelin is a business like any other, and producing these guides takes time, resources and money. As long as the editorial standards are upheld and stars can’t be bought, I don’t see an issue.

‘It’s not perfect, and I don’t think it’s fully comprehensive, but for elevated dining, I’d still rather consult the Michelin Guide than TripAdvisor.’

Julianna Twiggs, who is in charge of the guide’s partnerships, revealed that Michelin does not go to every country or city willing to part with millions of dollars for the guide, and not every contract results in a guidebook.

The Straits Times reported that the money paid by tourism boards helps fund the travel costs of Michelin inspectors, who perform a ‘culinary audit’ to determine how mature the restaurant industry of the destination is.

She insisted that this does not guarantee the partner destination any stars, and Michelin inspectors may instead offer advice to partners who don’t qualify.

‘It can be a hard pill to swallow, but it’s non-negotiable,’ she said. ‘We have to have partners that see and believe in the value we bring, but are willing to accept our independence.’

Despite the controversy, the Michelin Guide continues to hold significance for chefs, even if a star isn’t what they’re after.

Thomas, who now runs his own pub, The Silks, in Marlborough, said he is ‘certainly not chasing a star’, but still holds his cooking to Michelin Guide standards.

‘I aspire to the five guiding principles of Michelin, which are quality ingredients, flavours, techniques, personality, and consistency because I care about food, about hospitality, and I like to work with local businesses and local suppliers.

‘If a star ever came my way, it would only ever be because of what I believe in and not because I’m trying to achieve a star.’