Unpacking the ‘Business Model’ for Fortification Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Stakeholder Identified Drivers of Success and Constraints to Progress
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background of Research Project
1.2. Busines Viability Factors Explored
1.3. Business Models Defined
2. Methods
2.1. Data Analysis and Scoring Used
2.2. Limitations
3. Results
3.1. Repondents by Type of Organisation and Main Funding Source (“Context” in Figure 1)
3.2. Firm Size, Targeting and Legislation Level (“Scale”, “Mature vs. Start-up” “Voluntary vs. Mandatory” and in Figure 1)
3.3. Standards and Type of Business Models (“Policy and Regulation” in Figure 1)
3.4. Premix Importation and Challenges (“Tradable vs. non Tradable” in Figure 1)
3.5. Stakeholders’ Views on Reasons behind Successful Projects
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Characteristics of Fortification Initiatives | Success Score | Self-Sustainability Score | Target Market |
---|---|---|---|
Legislation | |||
Mandatory vs. voluntary | Ns | Ns | Ns |
Target | |||
Non-targeted vs. targeted | X | X | Ns |
Scale | |||
Size of firm | Ns | X | Ns |
Standards | |||
Approved/voluntary/no standard | Ns | Ns | X |
Testing | |||
In-factory testing ex-factory testing | Ns Ns | X Ns | Ns Ns |
Business plan | |||
E.g., Business plan before or at implementation vs. no business plan | Ns | Ns | Ns |
Type of Business model | |||
Value chain level vs. inter-level coordination vs. large scale, etc. | Ns | Ns | Ns |
Region | Ns | Ns | Ns |
Success | X | Ns |
References
- GAIN. The Arusha Statement on Food Fortification; Statement Delivered by H E Tumusiime Rhoda Peace; Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture, African Union: Arusha, Tanzania, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mkambula, P.; Mbuya, M.N.N.; Rowe, L.A.; Sablah, M.; Friesen, V.M.; Chadha, M.; Osei, A.K.; Ringholz, C.; Vasta, F.C.; Gorstein, J. The Unfinished Agenda for Food Fortification in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Quantifying Progress, Gaps and Potential Opportunities. Nutrients 2020, 12, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hoogendoorn, A.; Luthringer, C.; Parvanta, I.; Garrett, G. Food Fortification Global Mapping Study 2016. Technical Assistance for Strengthening Capacities in Food Fortification. Available online: https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/food-fortification-global-mapping-study-2016.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Horton, S. The Economics of Food Fortification. J. Nutr. 2006, 136, 1068–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wirth, J.P.; Laillou, A.; Rohner, F.; Northrop-Clewes, C.A.; Macdonald, B.; Moench-Pfanner, R. Lessons Learned from National Food Fortification Projects: Experiences from Morocco, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Food Nutr. Bull. 2012, 33, S281–S292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pachón, H.; Spohrer, R.; Mei, Z.; Serdula, M.K. Evidence of the effectiveness of flour fortification programs on iron status and anemia: A systematic review. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 780–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osendarp, S.J.M.; Martinez, H.; Garrett, G.S.; Neufeld, L.M.; De-Regil, L.M.; Vossenaar, M.; Darnton-Hill, I. Large-Scale Food Fortification and Biofortification in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Programs, Trends, Challenges, and Evidence Gaps. Food Nutr. Bull. 2018, 39, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nantel, G.; Tontisirin, K. Policy and Sustainability Issues. J. Nutr. 2002, 132, 839S–844S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DaSilva, C.M.; Trkman, P. Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Life, S.A. The # Future Fortified Global Summit on Food Fortification-Events Proceedings and Recommendations for Food Fortification Programs. Available online: https://www.ign.org/cm_data/FutureFortifiedSupplement-6-July-2016.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2019).
- Large-Scale Food Fortification. Available online: https://www.gainhealth.org/impact/programmes/large-scale-food-fortification (accessed on 5 December 2019).
- Lalani, B.; Bechoff, A.; Bennett, B. Which Choice of Delivery Model(s) Works Best to Deliver Fortified Foods? Nutrients 2019, 11, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mildon, A.; Klaas, N.; O’Leary, M.; Yiannakis, M. Can Fortification be Implemented in Rural African Communities Where Micronutrient Deficiencies are Greatest? Lessons from Projects in Malawi, Tanzania, and Senegal. Food Nutr. Bull. 2015, 36, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, J. Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Collective Action by Business, Governments and Civil Society to Achieve Scale and Transform Markets; Harvard Kennedy School: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Timmer, A. Iodine Nutrition and Universal Salt Iodization: A Landscape Analysis in 2012; Iodine Global Network: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 5–9. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Thematic Analysis. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 6626–6628. [Google Scholar]
- Team, R.C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fiedler, J.L.; Afidra, R.; Mugambi, G.; Tehinse, J.; Kabaghe, G.; Zulu, R.; Lividini, K.; Smitz, M.F.; Jallier, V.; Guyondet, C.; et al. Maize flour fortification in Africa: Markets, feasibility, coverage, and costs. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1312, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greiner, T. Fortification of processed cereals should be mandatory. Lancet 2007, 369, 1766–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthringer, C.L.; Rowe, L.A.; Vossenaar, M.; Garrett, G.S. Regulatory Monitoring of Fortified Foods: Identifying Barriers and Good Practices. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 2015, 3, 446–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Khamila, S.; Sila, D.N.; Makokha, A. Compliance status and stability of vitamins and minerals in Fortified Maize Flour in Kenya. Sci. Afr. 2020, 8, e00384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhumula, P.; Dary, O.; Guamuch, M.; Tom, C.; Afidra, R.; Rambeloson, Z. Legislative frameworks for corn flour and maize meal fortification. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1312, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marks, K.J.; Luthringer, C.L.; Ruth, L.J.; Rowe, L.A.; Khan, N.A.; De-Regil, L.M.; López, X.; Pachón, H. Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 2018, 6, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Questionnaire Theme | Context | Potential Drivers |
---|---|---|
Background information: respondent type, business example, vehicle, geography, fortification type, fortificant(s) | Objectives Viability model | Public vs. private Scale Governance and coordination |
Business form: business scale, legislation level, market and targeting | Finance Technology Incentive structure | Scale Voluntary vs. mandatory Mature vs. start-up Output vs. process orientation |
Technology: premix and tech importation challenges | Technology Policy and regulation | Tradable vs. non-tradable |
Standards, regulation and business models | Policy and regulation | Voluntary vs. mandatory |
Variables | Description of Variable/Code in Survey |
---|---|
Project name | Name of the project/firm involved in fortification |
Region | Continent and country of the project were recorded |
Commodities fortified (these were then disaggregated by type (e.g., wheat flour and maize flour, etc.) | 1 = Fortified cereals and flours 2 = Fortified complementary foods 3 = Biofortified seeds and crops 4 = Other |
Source of funding | 1 = Donor 2 = Private investment, 3 = Public funding 4 = Other |
Source of secondary funding | 1 = Donor, 2 = Private investment 3 = Public funding 4 = Other |
Legislation | 1 = Voluntary (e.g., business can add or not), 2 = Mandatory (e.g., business must add by law) 3 = Other |
Standards | 1 = Approved standards 2 = Voluntary standard 3 = No standard |
Coverage of the target market | 1 = 0%—no production at end of project 2 = 0–33% some—limited sustainable production achieved 3 = 33–66% much—Some markets supplied, but not all 4 = 66–100% most—Many markets receiving and using fortified food, but some gaps 5 = 100%—all domestic food of this type fortified with no subsidy |
Size of firm (number of employees) | 1 = Large firm = 250 2 = Medium firm = 50 250 3 = SME = 10 50 4 = Small firm 10 5 = Other |
Type of business model | 1 = Value chain level collaboration (involving collaboration by different actors in the same value chain) 2 = Project-level partnerships (involving a specific project with different actors) Industry-level alliances (involving all actors in a particular sector e.g., millers) 3 = Multi-stakeholder platforms (involving actors at different stages and scales in a combination, e.g., processors and regulators) 4 = Inter-level coordination (involving a specific collaboration between two levels in a value chain e.g., processors and retailers) 5 = Small business food processing (focused on smaller food businesses) 6 = Large food business (focused on larger food businesses) 7 = Government feeding programme (government organised and funded programmes) 8 = Other |
Success index | Perceived level of success of the fortification initiative: 1 = Failure 2 = Too early to tell 3 = Success. |
Self-sustainability index | Perceived level of the sustainability of the fortification initiative: 1 = Model no longer functional or requires 100% subsidy 2 = Most from public subsidy 3 = Most from sales; 4 = 100%self-sufficient |
Premix investment | 1 = Yes 2 = No |
Premix importation | 1 = Yes 2 = No |
Premix import challenges | 1 = Delays at port 2 = High charges to import 3 = Large minimum order size 4 = Other |
Business plan | 1 = Plan before project 2 = Plan during project 3 = No business plan |
Post-mix testing | In-factory testing and ex-factory testing Scored from 1—not available; to 5—fully functional and available |
Standards infrastructure | National standards, conformity, traceability, and laboratories accreditation Scored from 1—not available; to 5—fully functional and available |
Variable Name | N | Mean Success Score | Standard Error | Mean Self-Sustaining Score | Standard Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plan before project | 25 | 2.64 | 0.14 | 3.25 | 0.21 |
Plan during project | 14 | 2.42 | 0.19 | 2.92 | 0.29 |
No business plan | 8 | 2.42 | 0.37 | 2.42 | 0.39 |
Testing/Standards | Type of Standards or Testing Applied | Mean | N | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Post-mix testing | In-factory testing | 3 | 50 | 1.69 |
Ex-factory testing | 2.96 | 47 | 1.52 | |
Standards infrastructure | National standard available and applied | 3.58 | 52 | 1.55 |
Conformity assessed by sampling, inspection, testing and certification | 3.3 | 50 | 1.54 | |
Traceability system in place | 2.88 | 48 | 1.44 | |
Laboratories and certification bodies accredited to international standards | 3.45 | 51 | 1.53 |
Theme | Sub-Theme | Description of Themes Expressed by Respondents |
---|---|---|
Government support (e.g., law/policies and monitoring) | Legislation Enforcement Subsidy | Memorandum of understanding between government and industry/national strategy (N = 3) Enabling standards and regulations/mandatory inclusion by all players in the industry made mandatory by the government, chosen food vehicle is commonly consumed. (N = 4) Monitoring Lab testing capacity. (N = 3) Political will/enforcement to ensure quality monitoring. (N = 3) Machines, premix equipment supplied by government and/specialist training on milling. (N = 4) |
Private sector involvement | Buy-in Equipment/training | Willingness of millers to adopt fortification. Effective leverage of industry association. (N = 3) Capacity strengthening support of stakeholders including industry support with social marketing and branding (N = 2). Public–private partnerships (PPP) (N = 5). Adequate supply of vitamin A premix, equipment. data generation, (N = 4) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lalani, B.; Ndegwa, M.; Bennett, B. Unpacking the ‘Business Model’ for Fortification Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Stakeholder Identified Drivers of Success and Constraints to Progress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238862
Lalani B, Ndegwa M, Bennett B. Unpacking the ‘Business Model’ for Fortification Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Stakeholder Identified Drivers of Success and Constraints to Progress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(23):8862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238862
Chicago/Turabian StyleLalani, Baqir, Michael Ndegwa, and Ben Bennett. 2020. "Unpacking the ‘Business Model’ for Fortification Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Stakeholder Identified Drivers of Success and Constraints to Progress" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 23: 8862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238862