Building Public-Private Partnerships in Food and Nutrition Workshop Summary (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 What Next?
4 What Next?
Pages 41-54
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 41... ...
Additionally, Jonathan Marks offered suggestions for how to navigate the ethics of private sector engagement. He referred workshop participants to the criteria and mechanisms developed by the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition and the WHO Partnership for Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health (PMNCH)
|
From page 42... ...
would fall within this domain. Based on work done during the Building Trust workshops, Finegood listed several questions, or issues, to consider during the initiation phase of a partnership: level of authentic trust; commonality of inter ests; brand complementarity; appropriate authority and mandate to negotiate; appropriate expertise, capacity, and resources; feasibility of achieving common goals; legal accountability throughout; and risk mitigation.1 1 Most of these issues were addressed during this workshop and are summarized elsewhere in this report.
|
From page 43... ...
Level of authentic trust Commonality of interests Brand complementarity Appropriate authority and mandate to negotiate Appropriate expertise, capacity, and resources Feasibility of achieving common goals Legal accountability throughout Risk mitigation (for media attention, public scrutiny) Development: If yes, how do we maintain our relationship?
|
From page 44... ...
Reflecting on Workshop Participants' Own Best Practices During the second breakout session, workshop participants were asked to think about past partnership experiences and to consider two questions. First, what benefits and risks of partnership should I be considering when determining the balance across all partners (e.g., money, in-kind resources, other assets)
|
From page 45... ...
Finegood observed that the report-back results were very closely aligned with the types of questions and issues that were included in the draft tool (Table 4-1)
|
From page 46... ...
Marks suggested that workshop participants look to the substantive criteria and procedural mechanisms developed by the UNSCN and the WHO Partnership for Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health as models for navigating the ethics of public–private partnership engagement. Both entities have wrestled with conflicts of interest and the institutional and scientific integrity and public trust challenges created by private sector engagement in public sector efforts.
|
From page 47... ...
dialogue.3 Marks noted that the policy effectively takes financial and inkind contributions "off the table." He quoted Rule 20 of the UNSCN 2007 document: "In order to protect against institutional conflict of interest, the Steering Committee will ensure that the SCN does not accept financial or in-kind contributions from food-related PSOs (private-sector organizations) for any of its activities, whether they are developed through Working Groups or through the Steering Committee/Secretariat based work plans." With respect to other, non–food-related PSOs, the policy states in Rule 22 that direct funds and in-kind contributions can only come from PSOs with "satisfactory assessment ratings with regard to their performance on human rights, labour rights, environment and good governance criteria" (UNSCN, 2007)
|
From page 48... ...
Criteria for partner selection include a corporate track record of social responsibility and leadership, a history of commitment to development and health goals, a responsible environmental and labor practice, and a positive public image. Addressing the implications of these approaches for public–private partnerships related to food and nutrition, Marks said, "I do think that some kind of due diligence on the private sector partners will be vital when it comes to addressing public trust." Marks also stressed the importance of conducting what he called a "3-P impact assessment," that is, an examination of the partnership before, during, and after the partnership has ended.
|
From page 49... ...
Cultivating Public Trust in the Food Industry Marks's comments triggered a lively discussion on the broader issue of public mistrust and the food industry, including whether mistrust of the food industry is the same as or greater than mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry. One participant viewed the two industries as equally problematic in the public eye and argued that because the pharmaceutical industry is able to engage in successful public–private partnership, the food industry should be able to do the same.
|
From page 50... ...
Three breakout groups were formed, with workshop participants joining whichever group they wanted to join. The groups were asked to articulate a goal for a partnership on their topic and, using the draft assessment tool as a guide, to identify questions they should be asking about a potential partnership at this very early stage of the conversation.
|
From page 51... ...
While the group did not explicitly pull from the draft assessment tool any metrics of acceptability, much of the discussion was centered on risk mitigation, with pro–healthy weight food technologies and the promotion of physical activity considered less threatening than other goals. The discussion of physical activity as a target led to some dialogue about whether there were any partners that would not be welcome at the table because of the risk of public mistrust.
|
From page 52... ...
conduct a natural experiment on the impact of front-of-package calorie labeling, using the introduction of front-of-package labeling as a baseline and conducting multicenter clinical trials to evaluate the impact of reduced-calorie products in different communities. From the draft assessment tool, many group members identified "level of authentic trust," "commonality of interests," and "risk mitigation" as key factors to consider when thinking about whether to engage in a behavioral research partnership; "clarity of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities" as an important factor to consider when evaluating development of the partnership; and "evaluation," not just of the research but also of the partnership itself, as a key factor to consider when assessing whether the partnership has reached its goal(s)
|
From page 53... ...
, is much more challenging than discussing collaboration in general terms. Finegood received a mixed response when she asked workshop participants how helpful the third breakout session had been compared to the first two.
|
From page 54... ...
He urged, "Our starting point should be that any activity in these arenas ought to be a collaborative effort." With respect to tangible next steps, he suggested that Food Forum members consider establishing working groups to propose and assess possible collaborative projects, including possible participants, and the appropriate neutral venue or body to convene and coordinate them.
|
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.