The role of business and cross-sector collaboration in addressing the ‘wicked problem’ of food insecurity

Abstract

There is growing interest in the potential for business to make proactive contributions to food security, particularly as part of some form of cross-sector collaboration. Such collaboration can improve value chain efficiency and may also begin to address some of the ‘wicked problem’ characteristics of food insecurity. Our interviews conducted during the food price crisis in 2008 confirm that a broad cross-section of stakeholders agree that the crisis has cyclical and systemic causes and that it has serious implications for business. We also describe a range of related initiatives already being implemented by companies. There is a degree of ambivalence about the feasibility of improved collaboration, given competitive pressures and concerns about compliance with competition laws. Nevertheless, a number of respondents emphasised the need for improved collaboration on particular issues and the paper identifies a number of these, some of which have since been targeted in a multi-stakeholder initiative, the Southern Africa Food Lab, that builds on this (and other) research.

Keywords:

• food security
• cross-sector collaboration
• corporate strategy
• ‘wicked problem’
• South Africa

1. Introduction

Food security is an economic and social right enshrined in the South African Constitution, a vital aspect of well-being and socioeconomic development in poor rural and urban communities, and an essential element for achieving peace and prosperity in the region (RSA, 2002). Yet the food crisis of 2008 again created severe difficulties for poor people and led to political unrest in many parts of the world, and it called attention to the cyclical and systemic problems underlying food production and distribution. The price increases had diverse causes, some of which have abated in the short term. However, in the medium and long term there are significant risks to global food security due to cyclical dynamics (Timmer, 2010) and ‘long-term failures in the functioning of the world food system’ (Von Braun, 2009:9). Global governance and market-related problems are increasingly compounded by demographic and environmental changes, including climate change, with southern Africa likely to be particularly adversely affected (Bohle et al., 1994; Magadza, 1994; Rosegrant & Cline, 2003; Lobell et al., 2008; Deutsche Bank, 2009).

Building on a range of studies on rural food insecurity, Misselhorn emphasises the multidimensional nature of food insecurity, pointing out that it requires analysis of a broader array of issues beyond the predominant focus on agricultural production: ‘A focus on improving crop yields would neglect those economic (e.g. poverty, lack of employment, inflation and market failures) and sociopolitical factors (e.g. conflict, property rights, education and HIV/AIDS) that are undermining the coherence of the family unit and creating increasingly vulnerable and socially unstable communities’ (2005:40). It is also becoming clear that food insecurity is no longer a predominantly rural phenomenon, an assumption that underpinned much previous work on food security (see De Swardt et al., 2005; and Battersby and Crush & Frayne, this issue).

While poor people struggle to access nutritious food, the food sector is undergoing structural changes. In South Africa, in line with similar trends in many emerging economies, the sector has become increasingly concentrated. A few large supermarket chains control food sales, and in the food manufacturing sector a few large, publicly listed companies control both production and sales capacity in most food categories (Mather, 2005; Fig, 2007; Louw et al., 2007). Small farmers, manufacturers and retail outlets struggle to be part of this increasingly competitive commercial system (Mather, 2005; Louw et al., 2007). These barriers to entry are all the more pertinent given the government's Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies, which are meant to increase black people's participation in the formal economy, and the ongoing challenges experienced in the government's land reform programme (Ntsebeza & Hall, 2007). Land reform beneficiaries are having difficulty developing or maintaining effective production on the newly acquired land, and they receive only limited government support. This has led many commentators to raise concerns about the implications for food security (for example Vink & Kirsten, 2003).

Against this background, interest is growing in the role of business organisations in contributing to – or perhaps impeding – food security. A prominent report published by the United Nations argues that ‘While government leadership is crucial for addressing the implications of the food crisis, business also has a vital role to play in partnership with others to develop and implement innovative responses’ (UN, 2008:5). This relates to the international corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement. The World Economic Forum defines CSR as ‘the contribution a company makes to society through its core business activities, its social investment and philanthropy programmes, and its engagement in public policy’ (quoted in Hamann, 2006:180).

Yet the role of business in addressing food insecurity is of course controversial. On the one hand, the World Economic Forum (2009) and Deutsche Bank (2009), drawing on the work of management scholars such as Prahalad and Hart (2002), suggest that important commercial opportunities await those businesses that find innovative ways to satisfy unmet needs in poor countries' food value chains, and that this could help mitigate food insecurity. On the other, Oxfam (2008) speaks for many critics of business when it contrasts the corporate profits of multinational food companies with the hardships faced by poor people during the 2008 crisis. Food manufacturing and retail companies have been common targets of protest in South Africa – manufacturers particularly where there have been adjudicated cases of collusion and price fixing, and retailers where there have been related investigations. Another prominent target at the global level has been the investment community. Concerns have been expressed that complex financial instruments, in particular, are so disconnected from the real economy that they fail to represent relevant price signals and instead lead to distortions that harm the poor the most (Von Braun, 2009).

These tensions are pertinent to many companies in the South African food industry, and many have put in place specific responses. However, given the complexity of the food security problem, numerous commentators highlight the need for improved collaboration between companies and between business, civil society and the state. Hence, for example, the Director-General of the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) argues that ‘The challenge of food security can only be resolved through a global partnership involving national, international, public, private and voluntary sectors’ (Diouf, 2008; see also Deutsche Bank, 2009).

In this paper we report on an action research project that was guided by the question: ‘What are the opportunities for more systemic and – where appropriate – collaborative contributions by business to food security in South Africa?’ The primary data sources were semi-structured interviews with a range of key informants in business and other sectors, mostly in South Africa. Our understanding also benefited from discussions in a working group with representatives from business, the government and civil society, and from a multi-stakeholder workshop held in Johannesburg in February 2009. This workshop led to the establishment of the Southern Africa Food Lab, a multi-stakeholder initiative that seeks to identify and pilot innovative means of enhancing long-term food security in the region (for more information, see http://www.southernafricafoodlab.org). The paper provides an overview of key stakeholders' perspectives on the actual and potential role of business and cross-sector collaboration in ensuring food security in South Africa and the issues these stakeholders find particularly salient (Mitchell et al., 1997). This discussion is in the context of relevant conceptual frameworks for understanding or even facilitating such stakeholder collaboration, as outlined in the following section.

2. Actor collaboration and food security as a ‘wicked problem’

Analyses of actor coordination and collaboration efforts often focus on efficiency gains in value chains (for example Hoffmann et al., 2008) or marketing challenges in the wake of deregulation (for example Doyer et al., 2007). The premise underlying many such analyses is that market participants can reap individual and collective gains from contributing collaboratively to improve the overarching system in which they are participating, while maintaining essential aspects of market competition. Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996) thus talk of the benefits of ‘co-opetition’, and this notion has also been investigated in the retail industry (Kotzab & Teller, 2003).

In Europe and the US, for instance, efficient consumer response initiatives have sought to enhance both vertical cooperation (between suppliers and retailers) and horizontal cooperation (between retailers) in order to harmonise business processes and standards, contributing to very significant savings (Kotzab & Teller, 2003). Nevertheless, ‘mainstream implementation … has been much less prominent than expected [because] collaboration practices are not well understood’ (Holweg et al., 2005:170). In South Africa, the benefits of collaborative approaches to supply chain management are increasingly recognised, but the difficulties identified by Holweg and colleagues apply here as well. A range of important cooperation initiatives are coordinated by the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa, but most are still in the early stages of development compared to some of their international counterparts.

Over and above inter-firm coordination, companies and public sector and civil society organisations are increasingly interested in the possibility of collaborating in the pursuit of broader societal objectives. Such ‘partnerships’ exist on different scales and take different forms, but they have in common the expectation that the participants can achieve their objectives more effectively and efficiently by pooling complementary resources and sharing risks and rewards (Huxham & Vangen, 2000:1159). They are ‘horizontally organised, maintaining the partners’ autonomy' (Kaul, 2006, quoted in Martens, 2007:20) and some suggest that this enhances their flexibility and capacity for social learning (Ruggie, 2002; Benner et al., 2004).

It has been argued that partnerships are being established as a response to gaps or deficits in traditional governance models, especially with regard to the limited – and some argue declining – ability of states to devise and implement rules in the increasingly global and complex interactions between social, economic and environmental systems. ‘The complexity of public policy issues is steadily increasing, contributing to growing knowledge and information asymmetries’ (Benner et al., 2004:194).

Such governance gaps are arguably particularly pertinent in matters related to food security. Indeed, food insecurity is in many ways a ‘wicked problem’, in other words, one that ‘defies resolution because of the enormous interdependencies, uncertainties, circularities, and conflicting stakeholders implicated by any effort to develop a solution’ (Lazarus, 2008:1160; see also Rittel & Webber, 1973). One of the most immediately apparent ‘wicked problem’ characteristics of food (in)security is the problem of definition (Altman et al., 2009), largely because of the diverse perspectives of the various role players in the system. Tschirley and Jayne (2010) analyse successive southern African food crises, in which government officials and traders are driven by diverging interests and deeply held beliefs and expectations of each other, leading to outcomes that are detrimental to both parties:

The critical challenge is how to build trust and credible commitment between the state and private sector in these politically sensitive food markets … Time is needed in part because the worldviews that different stakeholders bring to the table are not easily changed through factual analysis; this is the essence of the wicked problem. (2010:85)

The food system epitomises the complex, non-linear interactions between social and natural systems (Liu et al., 2007), also conceptualised as social-ecological systems (Anderies et al., 2004), which give rise to high degrees of unpredictability and path-dependence. It is thus difficult to adequately understand or even respond to the problem by focusing on particular parts of the broader system, and instead a more holistic, system-wide perspective is required. Adaptive planning and decision making are needed, in which particular emphasis is placed on social learning and step-by-step adjustments to improving understanding of the system (Holling, 1978). Hence Kemp et al. (2001:269) preface their discussion on societal transitions with the lyrics from a folk song: ‘The traveller has no path, he creates one as he goes’.

A number of these conceptual debates find application in particular initiatives (see Kemp et al., 2007, for a fruitful framing of such efforts in terms of ‘transition management’). In the food sector, an instructive initiative is the Sustainable Food Lab, a multi-stakeholder initiative established to mainstream environmental sustainability in food value chains. It is noteworthy also for its basis in an explicit conceptual framework that motivates and provides a process model for multi-stakeholder collaboration (see Scharmer, 2007; Kahane, 2010). The Sustainable Food Lab was an important model in the establishment of the Southern Africa Food Lab, which was in part an outcome of the research reported on here.

3. Methodology

This research is part of a broader action research project, culminating in the Southern Africa Food Lab initiative mentioned above, in which we are not only concerned with collecting data to be analysed but also explicitly seeking to make targeted interventions in the interests of improved household food security, with an initial focus on South Africa. Our approach was broadly inspired by Whyte's description of the way action research projects led to significant changes within industries or organisations and at the same time contributed to theoretical knowledge (Whyte, 1989). We wanted to contribute to a more proactive and, where appropriate, collaborative role for the private sector in ensuring food security in South Africa, and in the process to gain a better understanding of the opportunities and constraints for such proactive engagement and collaboration in the light of the preceding theoretical discussion.

Our research was guided by an extensive media review and document analysis, as well as the ongoing development of a database of role players with some form of interest or influence in the broader socioeconomic system of food production, marketing and consumption. Our data were derived from a series of interviews, discussions in a working group and a multi-stakeholder workshop (February 2009). The workshop concluded that some sort of novel multi-stakeholder initiative to address food insecurity would be a good idea. Funding for such an initiative was sought during the rest of 2009 and, with the support of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), a ‘change lab’ methodology was implemented during 2010 to establish what is now known as the Southern Africa Food Lab, The research reported on in this article was a precursor to and a supporting process for the Food Lab. A more detailed analysis of the Food Lab itself is planned in another article.

We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews during 2008 – a period characterised by high levels of food inflation. We interviewed 18 respondents from the private sector and 15 from civil society, government and academia. The private sector interviewees were senior managers in food sector companies, some of them multinational, with a prominent position in particular sections of key food value chains, with an emphasis on staples, such as wheat, maize and dairy.

The semi-structured interviews were guided by the following broad questions:

1.	Is there a food crisis, and if so, what are the causes?
2.	What are the impacts and implications for food companies?
3.	What should be done about it?
4.	What can or should business do?
5.	Is there scope for a multi-stakeholder process in addressing food security?

These questions were initially framed in an intentionally open-ended manner, so interviewees would be free to identify issues of particular relevance to their organisation or stakeholder group (Mitchell et al., 1997). They were followed by more targeted questions, to encourage respondents to focus on particular aspects of the issues arising from the conceptual framework discussed above or from the interviews, in a process akin to analytical induction (Manning, 1982; Hicks, 1994).

4. Business respondents' perspectives on the food crisis, its implications, and possible remedies

Most interviewees agreed there is a food security crisis in South Africa and identified various trends in and causes of the increased prices and decreased access, especially for the poor. There was general consensus on seeing the confluence of a range of trends contributing to rising prices, and they frequently emphasised international trends, such as rising input costs (linked to the oil price) and increasing demand, as well as domestic concerns, such as lack of investment in agriculture and problems related to land reform. As a representative of a South African manufacturing company noted, ‘Food prices tend to work by cycle – today the situation is dramatic because several factors are in motion’.

Most respondents also highlighted the significant implications of rising food prices for companies in the food sector. For a start, many company respondents noted that their companies were limiting price increases through a variety of measures, including in some instances significant cuts in margins. An interviewee from a South African manufacturing company said that in order to maintain market share they were currently not making money on some of their products.

It was also argued that there are significant implications for company reputation. A respondent from another South African manufacturing company argued as follows:

The food prices are affecting us … We are seen as bad companies that are profiteering and contributing to the situation … This positions us negatively and we get a bad reputation. This has tangible aspects when the unions talk us down and put our name on billboards.

4.1 The role of markets

Divergent views were expressed about the causes of the food crisis and what ought to be done. Many private sector interviewees argued in defence of market forces to alleviate the food price crisis. In particular, they believed that higher prices would lead to greater investment in agricultural production and hence would increase supply and decrease costs. By the same token, possible state-based measures to control the market, especially price controls, were seen as undesirable by many interviewees. Hence one manufacturing company respondent offered this opinion: ‘Free markets can take care of themselves: high prices are the best solution for high prices’. Some respondents, however, were more circumspect about the ability of the market to provide for food security. (For a critique of reliance on markets, see Von Braun, 2009.) Another manufacturing company respondent argued: ‘You have to secure the consistency of grain supply. Market forces are not totally able to make that happen’.

There were also divergent views about the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of current markets in key staples. At the multi-stakeholder workshop in February 2009, the role of and need for efficient and transparent markets was highlighted, and generally workshop participants from the private sector argued that the existing markets were functioning effectively (with emphasis on commodities markets). However, some of the experts argued that although market transparency is provided for in principle, in practice there are hidden costs, exemptions and pricing deals, and this probably impedes effective competition. Much of this is under the purview of the state, but it was noted that collaborative initiatives by private sector actors could improve transparency, and that this was important at least to restore confidence in the markets.

4.2 Agricultural production

Respondents' comments converged noticeably on the broad issue of the need to increase agricultural production. However, there were diverse and sometimes opposing views as to how to ensure such an increase. Some argued for the increased use of genetically modified (GM) crops, others for low-input and more nature-oriented agricultural practices. One of the prominent retail companies has embarked on an ambitious programme of supporting a ‘natural’ approach to farming in support of long-term soil fertility, effectively expanding the company's sphere of influence far down the supply chain. One of the company's representatives said that:

To conserve soils and long-term supply, we are creating our own bio-farming course [for our suppliers] … We try to reduce our fertiliser inputs, to add carbon in the soil, but it requires a huge amount of money to develop this kind of programme.

A representative of a farmers' association argued that complementary approaches can be found, emphasising the need for improved environmental management not only in agricultural production but also in the broader context, and highlighting water catchment management in particular:

We are working on GM … At the same time, we are looking into conservation agriculture. If you do not plough too intensively, you can better conserve the moisture in the soil. If you do not plough too much, you can avoid using too much diesel which starts to be a really big cost. There is also research on what kind of crops are going to be drought resistant in the future. We have another area of concern which is the quality of our water. Some British retailers started to refuse our table grapes because they found through their quality analysis that there was residual pollution on them. We water the grapes with the water from the rivers and it seems to be polluted. Quality of water is really one of our big concerns.

Respondents' views also diverged with regard to whether the emphasis should be on large-scale commercial agriculture or on smaller-scale or even subsistence agriculture. Many industry representatives argued that large-scale intensive agriculture is necessary to increase production. However, a researcher who has been studying this issue for some time argued that ignoring the plight of small-scale farmers would lead to far-reaching socioeconomic and political problems: ‘It is clear that there is a need for vertical coordination of the supply chain by the retailers to support these suppliers’. Most interviewees agreed that there are significant problems with the current land reform process, with beneficiaries often lacking the necessary resources and support to produce food effectively on their newly acquired land. Respondents mentioned a range of private sector initiatives in support of emerging farmers. These are discussed in Section 5.5 below.

4.3 Logistics

An issue that received significant media attention during the time of the research was logistics. Organised agricultural stakeholders were then arguing that the transport parastatal Transnet has not invested sufficiently in railway lines servicing the grain-growing areas. This was also mentioned in some of our interviews, with a domestic manufacturer pointing out that: ‘Transnet is shutting down some of its rail operations, which is a problem because road transport is much more expensive’. Interviewees argued that if the public infrastructure could be improved, this would have a significant influence on companies' supply chain strategies. A retail company respondent observed that:

The rail is clearly an opportunity too, we used to use it before, and there is still the rail compatibility on our truckloads. If something could happen between the triangle Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, it would be massive. The rail was abandoned partly because it was not fast enough. But today the planning is really better and you can plan for the next week, when before it was almost day-to-day planning. Rail makes sense again but today the capacity is not totally available. But if tomorrow it is available we will use it.

5. Perspectives on business contributions to food security

In the following overview, interviewees' comments regarding their firms' activities align with the three main categories of CSR, as outlined by the World Economic Forum and adopted by the UN (2008) for business contributions to food security: core business practices, philanthropic activities and policy advocacy. The first category thus pertains to companies' existing strategies and practices motivated by competitiveness, and possibilities for innovative changes or additions, such as the development of new products. Some of these initiatives may have no intentional or explicit link to food security. The second category includes primarily philanthropic practices, motivated by ethical or reputational considerations, such as food banking. Support for emerging farmers also involves such philanthropic elements, though it involves core business practices as well, when providing such farmers with access to supply chains. The third category includes business lobbying. Importantly, the first of these categories was the most prominent in our interviews, so the first five of the following seven themes are related to core business practices.

5.1 Lowering costs and margins

A number of respondents argued that companies adopt a range of measures to limit price rises, which in some instances mean that sales prices are at or even below cost. A representative from a wholesaling company said: ‘We control our costs more aggressively, put more pressure on the suppliers and we do not increase our margins’. In addition, some respondents noted that much of their core business was aimed at developing better products at lower prices. A representative of an international manufacturing company said: ‘We are closely examining the ingredients in our products to see how we can reduce prices while maintaining quality’. Similar comments were made by respondents from packaging companies, which is particularly relevant in the light of the significant contribution that packaging makes to shelf product costs.

5.2 ‘Base of the pyramid’ innovations

Some company respondents highlighted the need to see food security as a business opportunity, employing concepts such as ‘the base of the pyramid’ (Prahalad & Hart, 2002) to suggest that innovation in products, processes or even business models can help to give the poor better access to better nutrition. A respondent from an international manufacturing company said: ‘We have a programme to develop food products with high nutrition quality targeted at poor consumers – this is not CSR, but meant to make a profit’. Smaller changes, which also seek to give poorer market segments better access, include changes to packaging; as an interviewee from a retail company noted: ‘We realised that people were not able to buy extra-large packs any more because they are too expensive, so we now offer smaller pack sizes’.

5.3 Logistics

A significant contributor to costs that was identified by various respondents is transport and logistics. One logistics provider suggested that logistics represents ‘between 4% and 6% of the product's cost’, but this may well be an underestimate due to costs unlikely to be included in that figure, such as warehousing and inventory, as well as loss of product due to inefficient handling, misdirection, theft and delay. If the logistics are not reliable the supply network management costs can go up significantly to cover the risk of not having products supplied in time. The general trend in commodity food distribution is to consolidate inventory and facilities to drive down cost. In South Africa, it seems a prevalent strategy is for manufacturing and retail companies to integrate this consolidation process ‘in-house’ rather than through outsourcing. Where logistics companies are involved, these tend to be relatively large. In particular, retail companies are expanding their influence in the supply chain by, among other things, establishing large, centralised distribution centres. A logistics company interviewee said the intention was to achieve better control of the distribution channel so as to make it more efficient.

An interviewee from an international manufacturing company noted that significant efforts are already under way to decrease the costs associated with logistics: ‘Distribution is a really big part of our costs – the biggest costs are warehousing and moving our products – but there are few opportunities for improvement here’. Others, however, suggested that significant improvements and innovations are still possible in terms of transport and logistics. An interviewee from a wholesaler argued that there was certainly space for improvement and collaboration in logistics. Mention was made of innovative approaches that could be copied here, for example, a scheme in the UK where retailers share truck space.

Some of these innovations have to do with not only lowering costs but also enhancing the flexibility and resilience of distribution systems, sometimes with direct reference to food security and food safety. Again, their result is often to consolidate supply chain activities, as a retail company employee noted:

Because of food security and food safety, you try to sell the products as close as possible to the source of production. The manufacturers' factories follow the same path; they do not produce the same product in bulk any more but several kinds of products on the same site. The only way for a warehousing company to reply to that is to diversify too and to propose service integration, because it is not good for the food safety if the products go through 20 intermediaries.

5.4 Expanding distribution networks and retail into low-income areas

A number of wholesale and retail company respondents referred to existing efforts to improve distribution processes in low-income areas, including the development of new retail stores in these areas. The motive is to develop new markets, but at the same time this can significantly enhance poor residents' access to cheaper products. Yet respondents were also aware of the likely negative impacts of such new stores on the existing local supply. A retail company interviewee said:

In the low-income areas, we follow the franchise route and encourage community ownership. For instance, in one of our stores the local community provides the cabbage. But I am cautious because I think it could be dangerous for the more informal traders if the big retailers arrive massively.

Such initiatives are not limited to retailers opening stores in low-income areas. A wholesale company interviewee described efforts to support a network of small independent retailers servicing low-income areas: ‘We help them to have some leverage on the suppliers; it is a good way for us to understand our markets’.

5.5 Supporting small producers and suppliers

Supporting emerging entrepreneurs is a prominent feature of some companies' strategies, with a common emphasis on agricultural production. This is often also linked to companies' BEE policies. Retail and manufacturing companies in particular are making efforts to support emerging farmers, as an interviewee from a retail company explained:

We provide the emerging farmers with a facility to package … try to give them skills and access to markets. The key thing is that we commit to buying their products. We have more than 200 such initiatives but clearly this is not enough. [A survey was conducted] among illiterate farmers of one of these communities to evaluate their needs and we were surprised to learn that the biggest need for them was training, before anything else like bigger margins or better price.

Another retail company interviewee described similar efforts by his company, emphasising the role of ‘ethical agents’ who link the small producers to the markets. Manufacturing companies are also involved in such efforts, some of which are based on international experience and models, as an interviewee from an international manufacturing firm said: ‘We want to transform subsistence agriculture to viable agriculture which could establish them as commercial farmers … We follow the same model worldwide’.

We asked our interviewees whether such initiatives would benefit from better coordination between some of the formal protagonists in manufacturing or retail. Some of the respondents were open to such possibilities, but noted that such efforts are often part of a competitive differentiation strategy, including prominent branding components. One senior retail company representative emphasised instead the need for improved coordination and consolidation at the local level, implying that horizontal collaboration further up the value chain was not as important or feasible:

There is a real need to consolidate the initiatives at a local level: to improve the cooperation, to consolidate the short-term micro-credit mechanism, to take into account the irrigation questions and to create quality control.

5.6 Corporate social investment and food banking

Whereas the above five strategies and practices are broadly related to core business operations, interviewees also mentioned initiatives they saw as more closely related to corporate social investment (or strategic philanthropy; for a discussion of this term in the South African context see Hamann, 2006). One of the most prominent of these is food giving, or the practice of offering surplus food (for instance, food that has passed its sell-by date but not its use-by date) to soup kitchens or similar initiatives for feeding the poor. A particularly prominent initiative of this kind is the Food Banking Network, part of an international network that is setting up large logistics centres in the major centres of South Africa to distribute such food. Indeed, an aim of these food banks is also to support the establishment of new food value chains that give poor people better access to adequate nutrition. A number of large companies are supporting the Food Banking Network (see http://www.foodbank.org.za). Other companies mentioned initiatives that support feeding schemes and vegetable gardens, some of which are linked to schools.

5.7 Policy advocacy and lobbying

Finally, in line with the three categories of CSR identified by the UN (2008), core business practices and philanthropic efforts are augmented by advocacy and policy dialogue. Here, however, various respondents argued that there is insufficient dialogue between the private sector and the public sector, or that if such interactions are taking place they are often characterised by acrimony. A respondent from a company in agriculture said: ‘Most of the time there is no dialogue possible between us and them [the government and unions]’.

6. Is there scope for collective and collaborative action?

There was a degree of scepticism among interviewees with regard to the need for or feasibility of improved collaboration on issues related to food security. This was especially pronounced with regard to the prospect of improved collaboration between the private sector and government, given the current lack of dialogue identified by numerous interviewees. When asked about his company's relationship with the government, an interviewee from a retail company noted: ‘Yes, we talk to them, but they generally have a “punishment” mindset’.

Some respondents expressed doubt about the possibility of increased collaboration between companies either vertically within value chains or horizontally. Apart from legal constraints (considered in more detail below), a strong competitive impulse is – according to some interviewees – constraining even desirable collaboration, as an employee of a South African manufacturing firm noted:

I really think we have to achieve better collaboration in the food value chain … But whenever something interesting is released, usually people refuse to share it because they think it could represent some competitive advantage.

Most business respondents believed that, on the whole, competitive pressures were strong within the food sector (notwithstanding the related findings of the competition authorities). Hence there was a widespread sense that the issues around which coordination and collaboration might be organised need to be clearly circumscribed (and this is in line with existing collaboration experience abroad). One interviewee from a retail company summarised such concerns as follows:

[With regard to collaboration], it depends what will be your angle. We are not really interested to speak about prices but we really think there are things to discuss in terms of food giving, BEE in agriculture and entrepreneurship development.

The reluctance to discuss issues related to pricing was of course linked to high-profile cases of collusion and anti-competitive practices in the food industry, and increased attention given to the sector by the Competition Commission (see for example Competition Commission of South Africa, 2009). Many respondents highlighted constraints to collaboration due to fears of being seen to be engaged in anti-competitive practices. In this regard, an interviewee from the Competition Commission argued that there are legal avenues for collaboration between private sector organisations in the public interest, but that such initiatives need to be proactively identified and announced as such to the authorities. He also suggested that private sector fears about anti-competitive practices may well be unduly constraining necessary and beneficial communication between market players. It is apparent that there are significant sensitivities and uncertainties about what kind of collaboration is possible in the context of competition law.

Other issues were raised that were also seen as militating against the potential for collaboration. Over and above the limited interactions and relationships between the private and public sectors, mentioned above, a number of respondents described the relationships between different companies in the value chains as being tense. An interviewee from a South African manufacturing company said: ‘Most of the time we navigate in a sort of comfortable zone of conflict; but it depends which kind of manufacturer you are’. He was referring to the perceived differences in power exerted by different kinds of manufacturers in various value chains. South African manufacturers were often seen as being in a weaker position vis-à-vis wholesale and retail companies than the large multinational manufacturing companies that have a strong brand presence.

6.1 Emerging themes for possible collaborative action

Despite these identified constraints and challenges, various respondents highlighted the need and opportunities for developing collaborative approaches to food security. A number of themes were identified by groups of respondents, which might be particularly conducive to such collaboration. Some of the most frequently and coherently mentioned themes are summarised in Figure 1. Most of these themes were also prominent during discussions at the February 2009 workshop.

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of selected possible questions for a private sector initiative on food security in southern Africa, based on interviews

Figure 1 emphasises the value chain approach of our research and the resulting multi-stakeholder action initiative, the Southern Africa Food Lab. The themes (in the form of eight questions on the right of the figure) have implications for all or most of the value chain. Many of these themes have been discussed above in terms of interviewees' perspectives. The interviews highlighted particularly prominently the need to give emerging farmers better access to the value chain, and the importance of proactively considering environmental issues, including immediate concerns such as water scarcity and biodiversity, as well as the longer-term threat of climate change.

Some of the proposed themes were emphasised by some groups of interviewees more than others. In particular, the prospect of creating new business opportunities in support of food security was raised mostly by food manufacturing companies. However, though such initiatives are likely to have a manufacturing company as the main proponent, interviewees stressed that the initiatives are likely to require vertical collaboration in the value chain. Another theme that was raised more prominently among interviewees from manufacturing, retail or wholesale companies was food banking. On the other hand, the role of labelling, tracing and certification schemes, and the need to consolidate the many existing schemes, were identified most prominently by interviewees closer to primary production. Again, however, these issues are likely to require consideration by players from the entire value chain.

Probably the most controversial suggested theme is the issue of information transparency for the sake of reducing price volatility. As discussed, interviewees expressed opposing views on this, and it was also a bone of contention at the February 2009 workshop. It is suggested here as an important topic for consideration precisely because of its controversial character.

7. Conclusions

This paper provided an overview of stakeholders' perspectives on the actual and potential role of business and cross-sector collaboration in enhancing food security in South Africa, and the issues that have particular stakeholder salience in this regard. The literature suggests that cross-sector collaboration can improve value chain efficiency and may also begin to address some of the ‘wicked problem’ characteristics of food insecurity.

Our interviews confirmed that a broad cross-section of stakeholders in the South African food system – business representatives in particular – agree that there is a food crisis as a result of cyclical and systemic drivers, and that this has serious implications for business. They also show that a range of initiatives are already being implemented by companies, including core business practices such as lowering costs and margins, ‘base of the pyramid’ innovations, expanding distribution networks into low-income areas and supporting emerging producers and suppliers; as well as corporate social investment and food banking activities.

There was a degree of ambivalence among interviewees with regard to the need for or feasibility of improved collaboration on issues related to food security. They were particularly concerned about inter-firm collaboration on anything related to pricing and marketing issues, linked as they are to competitive pressures and compliance with competition laws. Hence there was a widespread sense that the issues around which coordination and collaboration are to be organised need to be clearly circumscribed.

Nevertheless, various respondents highlighted the need and opportunities for developing collaborative approaches to food security. A number of themes were identified by groups of respondents, which might be particularly conducive to such collaboration. In particular, all interviewees highlighted the need to improve emerging farmers' access to the value chain, and the importance of proactively considering environmental issues, including immediate concerns such as water scarcity and the longer-term threat of climate change. Some of the proposed themes were emphasised by some groups of interviewees more than others. For instance, the prospect of creating new business opportunities in support of food security was raised mostly by food manufacturing companies, and the need to consolidate the many existing labelling, tracing and certification schemes was highlighted most prominently by interviewees closer to primary production. However, most of these issues are likely to require consideration and coordination of players from the entire value chain.

Postscript

At the time of this paper going to press, the Southern Africa Food Lab that was being prepared by this research had taken shape. At an ‘innovation workshop’ in September 2010, representatives from business, government and civil society established thematic working groups to study some of the themes that have been identified in this paper (and most of which are highlighted in Figure 1). One group was dedicated to developing more effective distribution systems for nutritious, affordable food to reach low-income consumers, another worked towards creating a shared understanding of good practice for supporting primary producers, and a third investigated opportunities for lowering the cost of vital food items by lowering the cost of packaging, taking into consideration value chain logistics. Each of these working groups can draw on the resources of the broader group to better achieve its objectives and disseminate its lessons. As the initiative gathers strength, we expect these innovation teams to adapt to participants' evolving understanding of the issues and of each other, as required in emergent, collaborative change processes aiming to address a ‘wicked problem’.