Building Public-Private Partnerships in Food and Nutrition Workshop Summary (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 How to Partner
3 How to Partner
Pages 23-40
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
When describing the range of Foundation for the National Institutes of Health public health partnerships, Andrea Baruchin, director of NIH Relations at FNIH, remarked, "I always say, when we've seen one partnership, we've seen one partnership, because every one [is] different." This chapter summarizes the workshop presentations and discussion on model public–private partnerships, including the many public–private biomedical partnerships managed or coordinated by FNIH and the various food and nutrition–related partnerships in which the U.S.
|
From page 24... ...
Several models that were discussed in more detail are highlighted below. Andrea Baruchin provided an overview of several models of public–private partnerships being coordinated and/or managed by FNIH.
|
From page 25... ...
FNIH-managed partnerships, such as the Biomarkers Consortium, whereby the partnerships develop or support activities that take advantage of NIH expertise but are not led by NIH and for which FNIH coordinates and manages the partnership. In NIH-managed partnerships, FNIH transfers the donated funds to NIH, which then manages the science and expends the funds as necessary; FNIH sometimes coordinates the partnership through an external, or private partner, scientific board with all partners represented.
|
From page 26... ...
FNIH manages potential conflict-of-interest challenges, specifically the perceived or actual loss of government credibility as a result of partnering with industry, in several ways. Many projects involve multiple industry partners such that there is no real or perceived quid pro quo to any individual partner.
|
From page 27... ...
Dietz attributed the success of both partnerships to several factors: • relatively narrow targets; • common agendas that benefit all partners (with partners benefiting for different reasons) ; • complementary skills, contacts, and perspectives that the different partners bring; and • real incentives for industry partners to collaborate with each other, with no or limited financial disincentives (e.g., in the case of FFI, regulation around fortification provides incentive for flour millers to spend the money to fortify without putting themselves at a competi tive disadvantage)
|
From page 28... ...
Systematic review partnerships in form federal nutrition policies and programs. Post explained how CNPP created a Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL)
|
From page 29... ...
. Individual participants from a third session breakout group identified trust as one of the most important factors to consider when deciding whether to form a new partnership, mostly because of the important role that trust plays in risk mitigation (a more detailed description of the report-backs from that breakout session is provided later in this report)
|
From page 30... ...
need to be based on trust at the personal but also at the organizational level." While most of the discussion around trust was focused on intersectoral dynamics, that is, the relationships between individuals and institutions from academia, government, industry, and public-interest NGOs, several workshop participants mentioned the significance of intrasectoral trust. For example, Black observed during the Building Trust workshops what he described as competition and a lack of trust between individuals within sectors.
|
From page 31... ...
. Finegood remarked that another key lesson learned from the Building Trust workshops was that trust building requires a safe space.
|
From page 32... ...
Dietz mentioned that commonality of interests is an important feature of the National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance, with partners sharing the common goal of increasing fruit and vegetable intake even though their reasons for pursuing that goal differ. Industry partners want to increase sales, while government and NGO partners want to improve the public's health.
|
From page 33... ...
Feasibility and Achievability Several workshop participants identified "narrow targets" or, as Black put it, "feasibility of achieving the desired outcome," as another key feature of successful partnerships. As previously mentioned, Dietz observed that the success of the National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance and the Flour Fortification Initiative can be partly attributed to their narrow targets.
|
From page 34... ...
Risk Mitigation Measures Despite the value of the Keystone participatory process as noted by Black, when it was announced, this multisectoral approach to developing a universal front-of-package labeling system faced high-profile skepticism in the media from some public-interest NGO and academic representatives. Black acknowledged that without giving special consideration to risk mitigation from the outset, partnerships such as the Keystone example can be confronted with public skepticism or unanticipated controversy.
|
From page 35... ...
Nature of the Relationship The relational nature of a public–private partnership can be either consultative, whereby the public sector, or state, seeks input from outside organizations or groups; contributory, whereby the state funds a particular cause or organization; operational, whereby the state partners with outside organizations and groups but retains all power; or substantive, whereby risk and reward are correlated with equity and decision-making power. Castle noted that some people consider substantive partnerships to be 7 This section summarizes David Castle's presentation.
|
From page 36... ...
FIGURE 3-1 A benefit-risk decision-making pathway for engaging in public–private partnerships. SOURCE: Kraak et al., 2011.
|
From page 37... ...
While risk transference often involves legal liability, it could also involve operational risk. For example, in a jointly developed lab facility, operational risk transference questions that could arise include the following: Who actually takes on the responsibility for thinking about how the lab is going to be designed and built?
|
From page 38... ...
Sometimes long-term research requires public investment because of private-sector need for short-term return on investment. A problem with risk-averse industrial research partnerships, Castle noted, is that the overall rates of in-house industrial research tend to decrease over time.
|
From page 39... ...
39 HOW TO PARTNER commodate the constant reconfiguring of the "triple helix" of industry, academia, and government that our changing public health landscape demands. "The targets are moving," he said.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.