IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ssefpa/v16y2024i5d10.1007_s12571-024-01476-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping actor networks in global multi-stakeholder initiatives for food system transformation

Author

Listed:
  • Amber van den Akker

    (University of Bath)

  • Alice Fabbri

    (University of Bath)

  • Scott Slater

    (Deakin University)

  • Anna B. Gilmore

    (University of Bath)

  • Cecile Knai

    (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • Harry Rutter

    (University of Bath)

Abstract

There is growing recognition that global food system transformation requires a fundamental shift in norms, perspectives and structural inclusion and exclusion of different actors in decision-making spaces. As multistakeholder governance approaches become increasingly common, significant concerns have been raised about their ability to deliver such change. Such concerns are based on case study findings repeatedly highlighting their susceptibility to corporate capture. This study goes beyond individual case studies, examining global multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) whose stated aim is to drive a healthier and more sustainable food system. It identified and categorised actors within these MSIs, drawing on social network analysis to provide insights into actor centrality, power structures, and how this might impact MSIs’ potential to drive transformative change. Thirty global MSIs were included in our sample, including a total of 813 actors. Most actors were based in high-income countries (HIC) (n = 548, 67%). The private sector (n = 365, 45%) was the most represented actor category, comprising transnational corporations (TNCs) (n = 127) and numerous others representing their interests. NGOs, affected communities and low- and middle-income country actors remain underrepresented. The central involvement of TNCs which rely on the production and sale of unhealthy and unsustainable commodities represents a clear conflict of interest to the stated objectives of the MSIs. These findings lend weight to concerns that MSIs may reflect rather than challenge existing power structures, thus serving to maintain the status quo. This indicates a need to critically examine the use of multistakeholder governance approaches and their ability to drive global food system transformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Amber van den Akker & Alice Fabbri & Scott Slater & Anna B. Gilmore & Cecile Knai & Harry Rutter, 2024. "Mapping actor networks in global multi-stakeholder initiatives for food system transformation," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:16:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-024-01476-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s12571-024-01476-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12571-024-01476-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12571-024-01476-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lelieveldt, Herman, 2023. "Food industry influence in collaborative governance: The case of the Dutch prevention agreement on overweight," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Olivier De Schutter, 2017. "The political economy of food systems reform," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 705-731.
    3. Hermans, Frans & Sartas, Murat & van Schagen, Boudy & van Asten, Piet & Schut, Marc, 2017. "Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: Opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21.
    4. van Bers, Caroline & Delaney, Aogán & Eakin, Hallie & Cramer, Laura & Purdon, Mark & Oberlack, Christoph & Evans, Tom & Pahl-Wostl, Claudia & Eriksen, Siri & Jones, Lindsey & Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa & V, 2019. "Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102560, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Maywa Montenegro de Wit & Matt Canfield & Alastair Iles & Molly Anderson & Nora McKeon & Shalmali Guttal & Barbara Gemmill-Herren & Jessica Duncan & Jan Douwe Ploeg & Stefano Prato, 2021. "Editorial: Resetting Power in Global Food Governance: The UN Food Systems Summit," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 64(3), pages 153-161, December.
    6. Jeanette Hofmann, 2016. "Multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance: putting a fiction into practice," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 29-49, January.
    7. repec:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:540-566. is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    9. Cees Leeuwis & Birgit K. Boogaard & Kwesi Atta-Krah, 2021. "How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(4), pages 761-780, August.
    10. Barlow, P. & Thow, A.M., 2021. "Neoliberal discourse, actor power, and the politics of nutrition policy: A qualitative analysis of informal challenges to nutrition labelling regulations at the World Trade Organization, 2007–2019," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    11. Jennifer Clapp & Indra Noyes & Zachary Grant, 2021. "The Food Systems Summit’s Failure to Address Corporate Power," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 64(3), pages 192-198, December.
    12. S. Sethi & Donald Schepers, 2014. "United Nations Global Compact: The Promise–Performance Gap," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 193-208, June.
    13. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Candel, Jeroen J.L. & Pereira, Laura, 2017. "Towards integrated food policy: Main challenges and steps ahead," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 89-92.
    15. Bonno Pel, 2016. "Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation ‘capture’," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/269467, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Hambloch & Kai Mausch & Costanza Conti & Andy Hall, 2023. "Simple solutions for complex problems? What is missing in agriculture for nutrition interventions," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(2), pages 363-379, April.
    2. Adanella Rossi & Mario Coscarello & Davide Biolghini, 2021. "(Re)Commoning Food and Food Systems. The Contribution of Social Innovation from Solidarity Economy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-30, June.
    3. Stephanie Schrage & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2021. "Addressing Governance Gaps in Global Value Chains: Introducing a Systematic Typology," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 657-672, May.
    4. Blazquez-Soriano, Amparo & Ramos-Sandoval, Rosmery, 2022. "Information transfer as a tool to improve the resilience of farmers against the effects of climate change: The case of the Peruvian National Agrarian Innovation System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    5. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Margareet Visser & Matthew Alford, 2024. "Governance and Power Across Intersecting Value Chains: The Case of South African Apples," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 69-86, January.
    8. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    9. Awad, Mohamed Hassan, 2023. "Everything, all the time: Engaging the social problem of homelessness in entrepreneurship research and practice," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    10. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    11. Marcelo Royo-Vela & Jonathan Cuevas Lizama, 2022. "Creating Shared Value: Exploration in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    12. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    13. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Alice Hengevoss, 2021. "Assessing the Impact of Nonprofit Organizations on Multi-Actor Global Governance Initiatives: The Case of the UN Global Compact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-13, June.
    15. Lea Stadtler & Luk N. Wassenhove, 2023. "Between Intensity and Diversity: Leveraging the Role of Place in Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(4), pages 773-791, May.
    16. Pere Mercadé‐Melé & Carmina Fandos‐Herrera & Sofía Velasco‐Gómez, 2021. "How corporate social responsibility influences consumer behavior: An empirical analysis in the Spanish agrifood sector," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 590-611, July.
    17. Heloïse Berkowitz & Marcelo Bucheli & Hervé Dumez, 2017. "Collectively Designing CSR Through Meta-Organizations: A Case Study of the Oil and Gas Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(4), pages 753-769, July.
    18. Marijn Faling & Robbert Biesbroek, 2019. "Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 525-547, December.
    19. Robbert Biesbroek & Jeroen J. L. Candel, 2020. "Mechanisms for policy (dis)integration: explaining food policy and climate change adaptation policy in the Netherlands," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 61-84, March.
    20. Bjerkan, Kristin Ystmark & Seter, Hanne, 2021. "Policy and politics in energy transitions. A case study on shore power in Oslo," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:16:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-024-01476-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.