Multistakeholder initiatives in the global food system: transformative change or reinforcing the status quo?

Multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have become a popular approach to addressing public issues, including those related to public health and the food system. New SPECTRUM-funded research explores who is involved as ‘stakeholders’ in MSIs and highlights ongoing power imbalances in multistakeholder approaches.

Multistakeholder governance for a sustainable global food system

The current global food system is failing to provide healthy, sustainable food for all.1 While technical changes are essential, there is a growing understanding that a genuine transformation requires shifts in social and political norms, policy-making processes and power structures.2 MSIs, which bring together diverse actors to develop joint solutions, have gained popularity as supposedly more inclusive vehicles for change.3 Despite this, case studies have shown that multistakeholder approaches are more likely to set unambitious goals and rely on ineffective self-regulation,4–8 raising doubts about their ability to drive system-level change. The presence of vested interests among stakeholders, particularly private sector actors, further complicates their effectiveness and legitimacy as a governance approach.9

Who participates in multistakeholder initiatives? 

An actor’s ability to influence an issue is closely tied to their position within a network.10 Research shows that networks dominated by actors who benefit from the current power structures are less likely to promote transformative change, especially if this change would challenge their power base.11 This study examined a network of 30 global food system MSIs, mapping their 813 partners to understand which actors hold central positions in this network and how this might affect their capacity to drive change. 

The study revealed a significant imbalance: 67% of actors involved in MSIs were from high-income countries (HICs), even though many initiatives focused on challenges that most affect low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Moreover, the private sector played a large role in the network, with 45% of actors representing transnational food and agricultural corporations or business associations. Again, most of these corporations and associations had their headquarters in HICs. In contrast, the network included only 40 NGOs from LMICs. 

Network map of multistakeholder initiatives. Squares represent instances where five or more actors in this category linked only to one particular MSI.
Figure 1. Network map of multistakeholder initiatives. Squares represent instances where five or more actors in this category linked only to one particular MSI.

The most central actors in the network were primarily from the private sector. Half of the 11 actors with direct ties to five or more MSIs were either transnational corporations or organisations funded by them. This indicates that MSIs may fail to offer an inclusive platform for change, potentially marginalising actors from LMICs and civil society who are not only the most affected by food system challenges but whose perspectives may also lead to vastly different problem definitions and solutions.12

 

Implications for global food system governance

The study’s findings reinforce concerns that multistakeholder governance may not challenge existing power structures but instead perpetuate them.13 A key issue is the conflict of interest that arises when corporate actors who derive their profits from unhealthy and unsustainable products are central to these MSIs.9 Despite the state goals of MSIs to foster a healthier and more sustainable food system, many corporate stakeholders have a vested interest in maintaining the current status quo, relying on the continued consumption of unhealthy products. 

This raises doubts about the capacity of MSIs to achieve meaningful change. While MSIs are framed as inclusive governance approaches, they instead reflect existing power dynamics, giving corporations a platform to influence food system policies while sidelining more marginalised stakeholders. 

Moving forward: rethinking MSI design

It is therefore crucial to critically examine the role and design of MSIs. If they are to play a role in global food system governance, they must prioritise inclusivity and transparency, ensuring that underrepresented actors—particularly from LMICs and civil society—have a genuine seat at the table. Only then can MSIs move beyond maintaining the status quo and contribute to the changes that the global food system so urgently needs.

Read the full article at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-024-01476-7

About the author:

Amber van den Akker is a research associate at the University of Bath and a member of the SPECTRUM Research Consortium. Her current research focuses on multistakeholder and partnership approaches in the context of the commercial determinants of health. https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/amber-van-den-akker

 

 

References

  1. Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. The Lancet. 2019;393(10173):791-846. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8
  2. Béné C. Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence. World Dev. 2022;154:105881. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105881
  3. UNDESA, The Partnering Initiative. The SDG Partnership Guidebook: A Practical Guide to Buiding High-Impact Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and The Partnering Initiative; 2020. Accessed February 18, 2024. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26627SDG_Partnership_Guidebook_0.95_web.pdf
  4. Berliner D, Prakash A. From norms to programs: The United Nations Global Compact and global governance. Regul Gov. 2012;6(2):149-166. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01130.x
  5. Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, et al. Has a public–private partnership resulted in action on healthier diets in England? An analysis of the Public Health Responsibility Deal food pledges. Food Policy. 2015;54:1-10. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.002
  6. Parker LA, Zaragoza GA, Hernández-Aguado I. Promoting population health with public-private partnerships: Where’s the evidence? BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1438. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7765-2
  7. Lelieveldt H. Food industry influence in collaborative governance: The case of the Dutch prevention agreement on overweight. Food Policy. 2023;114:102380. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102380
  8. Rosewarne E, Huang L, Farrand C, et al. Assessing the Healthy Food Partnership’s Proposed Nutrient Reformulation Targets for Foods and Beverages in Australia. Nutrients. 2020;12(5):1346. doi:10.3390/nu12051346
  9. McKeon N. Are Equity and Sustainability a Likely Outcome When Foxes and Chickens Share the Same Coop? Critiquing the Concept of Multistakeholder Governance of Food Security. Globalizations. 2017;14(3):379-398. doi:10.1080/14747731.2017.1286168
  10. Smith JM, Halgin DS, Kidwell-Lopez V, Labianca G, Brass DJ, Borgatti SP. Power in politically charged networks. Spec Issue Polit Netw. 2014;36:162-176. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.007
  11. Turner JA, Horita A, Fielke S, et al. Revealing power dynamics and staging conflicts in agricultural system transitions: Case studies of innovation platforms in New Zealand. J Rural Stud. 2020;76:152-162. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.022
  12. Montenegro De Wit M, Canfield M, Iles A, et al. Editorial: Resetting Power in Global Food Governance: The UN Food Systems Summit. Development. 2021;64(3-4):153-161. doi:10.1057/s41301-021-00316-x
  13. Chandrasekaran, K, Guttal, S, Kumar, M, Langner, L, Manahan, MA. Exposing Corporate Capture of the UNFSS through Multistakeholderism. Food Systems 4 People; 2021. https://foodsystems4people.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/UNFSSreport2021-pdf.pdf

This article was published on