Managing engagement among public, private and civil society actors participating in NewTools: a research partnership on food profiling

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: Partnerships between public, private and civil society actors can potentially address food systems challenges. However, such cross-sector partnerships may require the management of potential tensions and conflicts of interest. This article presents the development and content of a framework for engagement between food systems actors involved in NewTools, a cross-sector research partnership involving twenty-eight partners from research institutions, government, food industry and civil society. The purpose of the framework is to facilitate engagement of partners and maintain research integrity. DESIGN: This two-phased, iterative study was conducted in 2022. It was guided by recommendations for methodological framework development and was informed by existing frameworks and recommendations as well as two rounds of consultations with partners. SETTING: The Norwegian cross-sector research partnership NewTools that aims to develop two food profiling models: one for dietary quality and one for environmental and social impact. PARTICIPANTS: Food systems actors involved in the NewTools project. RESULTS: The NewTools framework consists of four main parts: (1) definition of overarching principles for collaboration (transparency, regular information, adhering to defined roles and responsibilities), (2) descriptions of roles and responsibilities of the partners involved, (3) procedures to ensure involvement and transparency and (4) identification and mediation of potential conflict areas. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides an example of how a cross-sector research partnership developed a framework to facilitate engagement between partners with different interest within a food system. Future studies are needed to assess the potential value of frameworks for cross-sector research partnerships towards healthier and more sustainable food systems.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.