in food and nutrition and whether there were any mechanisms that could be helpful in generating that trust.

Finally, Michael McGinnis offered some closing remarks on general areas in food and nutrition that he considers ripe for future collaboration, based on mutual interest among all sectors. These include research (e.g., developing a common research agenda aimed at understanding variation in basic caloric requirements) and assessment (e.g., pooling data on eating habits and the impact of eating habits on weight and health status). Indeed, that the mutual desire for more data and knowledge makes research and assessment especially conducive areas for public–private collaboration was an overarching theme of the workshop.

TOOLS FOR BUILDING PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION

One outcome of the Building Trust Initiative was a one-page list of questions to consider when assessing whether to engage in a partnership, that is, the types of things that potential partners should think about as they enter into a dialogue on multisectoral collaboration (Table 4-1). Finegood offered the one-page list of questions as a draft assessment tool for use during the workshop. Participants used the questions as guidance during the second breakout session, when exploring “metrics of acceptability,” or factors to consider in deciding whether to engage in a partnership. The questions were used again during the third breakout session, when participants explored possibilities for partnerships on specific topics.

The draft assessment tool has three general categories, or domains, of questions:

1. Initiation. The first set of questions revolves around what potential partners should be thinking about at the beginning of a partnership. The benefit-risk decision-making pathway displayed in Figure 3-1 from Kraak and colleagues (2011) 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 interests; 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

image

1 Most of these issues were addressed during this workshop and are summarized elsewhere in this report. The only one that was not discussed in extensive detail was brand complementarity. According to Finegood, clashing of a private brand and a nonprofit brand and the impact of



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement