Abstract
The private sector is a critical partner in achieving the universally adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—UNDP 2022. As part of a national strategy to address malnutrition (SDG2), Large-Scale Food Fortification of commonly consumed staple foods and condiments with vitamins and minerals is a proven intervention that requires the concerted engagement of multiple actors in a country’s agri-food and public health ecosystems. Lessons from TechnoServe’s Strengthening African Processors of Fortified Foods (SAPFF) Program, implemented from 2016 to 2022 in Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, provide essential learnings about how to effectively engage, motivate, and improve the food fortification performance of the industry in compliance with national standards, through capacity building, responsive technical assistance, and multistakeholder engagement that builds trust and accountability of industry in the fight against malnutrition.
Introduction
Fortifying commonly consumed foods with micronutrients offers a cost-effective solution that can reach large populations. 1 The benefits accrue not only from reducing the burden of morbidity and mortality but also from improved school performance, parenting, and productivity. 2 Mandatory fortification of widely consumed staple foods is one approach to improve the intake of essential micronutrients. 2 It can be cost-effective and achieved at a scale where the processing of these foods is relatively consolidated. 2
Food processing in most countries is undertaken by the private sector, which plays a central role in large-scale food fortification (LSFF) programs and is directly responsible for fortification practices. 3 However, governments also need to create an enabling environment for the food processing sector by setting appropriate requirements, ensuring a level playing field, and creating appropriate incentives to ensure sustainable LSFF. The success and effectiveness of LSFF are therefore best achieved when the public, private, and social sectors collaborate to develop, produce, and promote micronutrient-fortified foods.
According to United Nations data, Nigeria has undergone tremendous growth over the last century, with its population almost doubling from 92 million in 1900 to 206 million in 2020. 4 Furthermore, the urban population grew from 31% to 52%, and the middle class grew from fewer than 1 million to 50 million. By 2050, the population is expected to reach 411 million, with a higher percentage in urban cities. 5 Nigeria is blessed with enormous agriculture potential and other natural and mineral resources that have fueled tremendous economic growth. However, it remains a net food importer, and the country’s resources are severely underutilized. 6 Furthermore, Nigeria faces chronic malnutrition contributing to the second highest burden of stunted children in the world, 7 with a national prevalence rate of 37% of children under five, as a result of vitamin A deficiency and iron deficiency anemia. 8
The rising need to feed a growing nation has led to considerable expansion and the establishment of consolidated food production companies. It is estimated that Nigeria imports and mills over 6.5 million metric tonnes of wheat (equivalent to over 4.6 million metric tonnes of flour), over 800 000 metric tonnes of salt, over 1.5 million metric tonnes of sugar, and about 1 million metric tonnes of palm oil annually. 9,10 Except for edible oil, Nigeria relies almost exclusively on importing wheat, crude sugar, crude palm oil, and crude salt, which are processed or refined by a handful of large food companies.
The Government of Nigeria recognized the potential to leverage the consolidated food processing sector to address chronic micronutrient deficiency through LSFF. In response, mandatory salt iodization policy and legislation was enacted in 1992 and has successfully controlled iodine deficiency disorders by maintaining high iodized salt coverage. 11 Following this, mandatory fortification of wheat flour, edible oil, and sugar were introduced between 2000 and 2002; consistent fortification levels with these vehicles have been elusive until recently, 12 when significant improvements were observed through the Strengthening African Processors of Fortified Foods initiative.
A multistakeholder approach is central to creating an integrative ecosystem for LSFF; therefore, engaging with industry is one of the core areas through which desired outcomes of LSFF can be achieved. Staple food processors are an integral component of the food system and are directly responsible for undertaking fortification practices. 13 So, it remains critical that efforts to ensure improved consumer access to adequately fortified foods be geared toward improving their technical capabilities, motivating their compliance, and bolstering the enabling environment that sustains their good quality performance. Industry plays a significant role in ensuring food safety and quality, thereby delivering nutritional food in most countries, which is increasingly becoming a critical priority for rapidly growing low- and middle-income countries. 14
There are mixed opinions regarding the ability of food processors to sustain effective implementation of food fortification practices vis-à-vis the efficacy of the government’s mandate to regulate fortification standards. Historically, LSFF programs have focused on thematic areas aimed primarily at enhancing the enabling environment, such as improving laboratory testing capacity, supporting food fortification standard setting, and data sharing. 15,16 Although these traditional strategies have helped establish the necessary regulatory environment for food fortification, the quality of products mandated for food fortification has remained inconsistent, with low population coverage.
Industries that produce fortified staple foods are often criticized for the inconsistent quality of their products. For example, although companies are aware of the benefits and need to fortify their products adequately, they have been observed to either not fortify at all or do so suboptimally. Beyond the lack of commitment observed at the processor level, inadequate fortification by the industry undermines the aim of fortification, which is a reduction of micronutrient deficiencies at the population level. Depending on the geographical context, food processing sectors are often defined by varying operational and technical capabilities. Some players are large multinationals and others are small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that employ less sophisticated production methods. Production scale and sophistication directly impact the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of integrating food fortification into industrial processing, favoring larger processors.
Over the last 2 decades, much emphasis on development partner support to national fortification programs has focused on establishing the regulatory environment for enforcing national standards. As a result, there is limited insight available on evolving industry initiatives that incorporate incentives to motivate the industry to improve its performance beyond processing and quality assurance (QA), including business management and sector leadership. In many cases, this has led to design program’s that do not effectively consider the business case for sustained food fortification.
TechnoServe’s (TNS) Strengthening African Processors of Fortified Foods (SAPFF) Program worked in Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanzania from 2016 to 2022. The program aimed at strengthening the capabilities of food processors of staple foods to ensure that their branded products comply with national quality standards while working with governments, industry associations, and development partners to facilitate an enabling environment that promoted the competitive, cost-effective, large-scale production of fortified foods on a sustained basis.
This article describes the SAPFF Program’s experiences to engage the industry for LSFF in the aforementioned program countries. This article also details approaches that best address the main obstacles preventing more profound industry commitment. This includes the lack of integration of food fortification into day-to-day business processes, the absence of appropriate incentives, and a deficit of transparency around food fortification compliance with product quality standards.
Defining Complex Industries by Geography and Market Structure
Because the food industry in any country is a nonhomogenous group, uniform strategies for engaging food processors may not apply to all actors. 17 Successful private sector engagement requires a foundational recognition of the diversity and tailoring of approaches accordingly. Even under the umbrella of a single initiative, flexibility must be allowed to accommodate various challenges faced by different industries. Consequently, one must fully recognize the distinct traits of food processors regarding their production capacity/utilization, diverse product portfolio, market reach, expansion strategies in their competitive environments, corporate motivations, and leadership quality. The following discusses factors of achieving behavior change, strategies required to engage private sector players, and highlights some issues when designing and implementing programs for LSFF.
Early strategies to collaborate with the industry have focused mainly on larger companies, primarily because this group typically has been observed to have efficient infrastructure while also allowing for the opportunity to impact the fortification status of a large portion of the retail market. However, a much more comprehensive range of industry actors provides products in developing countries. In some environments, in rural and low-income communities, branded products from companies that operate within the formal sector are not as readily available in remote regions. Instead, this consumer base has been found to prefer unbranded products from informal markets.
The technical capacity of personnel, ranging from operational QA/QC staff to key decision makers, also varies within companies. Some companies, however, are both equipped and committed to institutionalizing adherence to quality best practices and appropriate training. Furthermore, the SAPFF Program recorded that the active participation of food processors as members of industry associations also varies, making the strength of coordinated efforts unpredictable depending on how recognized or functional these bodies can be. For example, in environments where associations serve as a strong coalition of processors, barriers to entry, such as adherence to a code of conduct, can effectively inform the criteria used to accept members. Furthermore, food processing associations can also form a collective voice that influences policy considerations. Another notable factor determining market structure is the retail costs of certain products. For example, some specialty brands have a relatively higher price and are accessible to only a fraction of the population. Other comparable brands are cheaper and more widely purchased among consumers at the bottom of the pyramid.
Due to the industry’s understanding as a nonhomogenous stakeholder group, employing uniform strategies for engaging food processors may not yield the same success if applied across the board. Thus, technical assistance (TAs) must be more responsive and tailored to the context. Additionally, throughout implementation, accommodations must be made for strategy adaptions that factor in the evolving business and political landscape, further shifting the motivations and principles of cross-sectoral stakeholders.
SAPFF Strategies
The SAPFF Program had 2 main components—strengthening the ability of food processors to comply with fortification standards (while increasing industry commitment to fortification) and supporting the fortification enabling environment. A summary of key findings from SAPFF is presented in Table 1.
Findings of Key SAPFF Initiatives.
Capacity Building
Historically, LSFF interventions across sub-Saharan Africa have relied on capacity building as the primary channel for driving change at the factory level and more prominently within government ministries and agencies tasked with monitoring and enforcement. These efforts have been usually in the form of group training, ranging in topics from advancing knowledge and interpretation of fortification standards to global best practices on operationalizing fortification. The SAPFF program retained capacity building as a critical component of the overall objective and ensured that support was delivered, emphasizing the need for companies to prioritize knowledge sharing as a core piece of continuous improvement.
Data collection and ongoing monitoring/Generate data
Accessing credible and consistent data on compliance levels was initially challenging. Companies are generally unwilling to share information that they deem commercially sensitive or could negatively affect how they are assessed through a regulatory lens. Moreover, regulators often do not generate or distribute quality information, and local laboratories can be unreliable. Large companies, in particular, tend to comply with fortification standards, sometimes for specific samples, specific facilities, or at a given time, partially due to the spot testing approach utilized by regulatory agencies.
Strengthening African Processors of Fortified Foods first established a baseline in all 3 countries to better understand existing gaps in compliance (Table 2). The testing methodology used to collect composite samples of edible oil, salt, sugar, and wheat flour products from markets across the countries is further detailed below. The samples were sent to Medallion Lab 13 in the United States for analysis. Medallion Labs is the analytical testing and consulting service of General Mills based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Since 1974, they have served more than 3000 national and international clients, earning a reputation for quality, reliability, and flexibility while meeting demand for fast turnaround and accuracy of results. Each sample is treated with excellent care and confidentiality is maintained at all times. Although it would have been the preference to use already established testing centers nationally, initial results were inconsistent.
Interpretation of Fortification Compliance.
Now available for all 3 countries, baseline data was utilized to prioritize target companies and project implementation. A total of 246 composite samples of various food vehicles were collected and assayed for the baseline exercise between January and February 2018. The composite samples were made from 724 stock keeping units (SKUs) representing 206 brands and 130 companies. Table 2 further summarizes the logic model for assessing compliance used for this study, and Table 3 further details sample collection size by food vehicle and country.
Baseline Study Sample Size.
Product sampling, in theory, can be based on several factors, including population, geopolitical zones, manufacturing locations, and quantity. Due to the project objectives, products were sampled by brands that would then allow tabulation of compliance by manufacturers and their brands and inform appropriate interventions. The samples were purchased from the market, and an effort was made to collect all available brands of products within each of the targeted food commodities in each country, thus depicting the most accurate representation of the respective industries.
The smallest unit quantities of each brand of product were purchased from the market. Three to five SKUs when these were less than 10 kg from different lots were purchased. If a product was only available in larger SKUs or above 10 kg, one sample was purchased due to handling limitations, and several subsamples were drawn from the packet and composited. In instances where smaller pack sizes were available, the multiple samples from each individual brand within a location were first composited. Subsequently, 3 replicate samples of between 250 and 500 g were drawn from the composited sample.
For larger SKU sizes above 10 kg, composite samples were made by sampling from different parts of the bag. Composite samples allow for a broader sampling analysis framework and are more representative than spot samples, which can be misleading due to variations in distribution conditions or production locations. Furthermore, it also provides a better estimate of the mean concentration in the survey unit. Three samples were drawn—one set to be sent to the main laboratory for assays, one set of samples (10% chosen randomly from within the overall number of composited samples to be sent to a reference laboratory to validate the results of the main lab), and one set was stored as retention sample in case of any eventuality.
Each of the collected samples was removed from its original packaging, and 3 replicate samples were prepared from the composited sample. The replicate subsamples were packed in high moisture barrier laminated Kraft bags for wheat and maize flours, salt, and sugar. Amber-colored bottles were used for edible oil samples. The samples were stored in cool ambient conditions in offices away from direct sunlight.
A comprehensive database of information was prepared for each sample, and a sampling code was generated for each composite sample. The analyzing laboratory did not know the origin of the samples from the sampling code or could not trace it back to the manufacturer or brand. Alphanumeric codes were assigned.
The following information was recorded for each sample: Name of the sample collector Unique sample ID generated by the sampling code developed for the study to identify individual samples. Name of the brand Type of food vehicle Country sample was collected from Region sample was collected from Date sample was collected Manufacturing date Expiry date Batch code and lot number (if available) Micronutrient content listed on the label Name and location of outlet from where the sample was collected The purchase price of the sample The packet size
The database will also be used to record the analytical results for the samples. However, the laboratories only received the coded samples and did not know the origin of the samples.
To maximize impact, SAPFF prioritized companies with low compliance levels. While care must be taken to ensure that the program is not perceived as siding with the regulator to follow-up with companies on their lack of compliance, knowing before engagement how large the likely compliance gap is in a given company helped in crafting appropriate messages during the initial pitch or in follow-up meetings.
Although some believe that publicizing underperforming companies could be seen as an effective means of increasing industry peer pressure to comply, SAPFF found the data to be much more impactful in influencing the buy-in of companies during the engagement. Additionally, building trust remains a critical aspect of the program’s engagement strategy and further enables country teams to gain access to production facilities to conduct diagnostics based on confidentiality. The baseline survey had additional important purposes such as: Selection and prioritization of companies to target for customized technical support. Generate data that can be used to create awareness of the brand’s performance in the market and use this information to engage with the processors to improve product quality, particularly compliance with fortification standards. Establish potential causes for noncompliance against standards (incorporation rate, nutrient stability, product quality, packaging, handling conditions).
Ongoing monitoring further validates if the technical assistance (TA), or other areas of influence described below, had the desired impact on fortification levels. As this data is generated in real-time, it informs any possible need to course correct. Furthermore, generated results are used as advocacy tools and are shared during the CEO forum to show the big picture of how sectors are tracing.
Engagement prioritization strategy
Given the project’s objective of significantly improving the market share of properly fortified foods, SAPFF initially focused on engagements with large-scale companies. To facilitate prioritization efforts, the preliminary stage was to divide processors into tiers based on their installed capacity or maximum output that processors can produce under ideal equipment and input supply conditions. These tiers differed by food vehicle. The different tier structures reflect the nature of the different industries in each country and provide insights into how consolidated specific sectors are (Table 4).
Definition of Tiers.
Given the significant time and effort required to engage with each company, particularly the larger processors, SAPFF intentionally prioritized and approached target companies. Throughout all stages of engagement, SAPFF assessed the following 3 criteria to determine how to prioritize a company and how to tailor the approach to engage with them: (a) the implied market share (based on actual brand production figures provided by target national staple food processors vis-à-vis national consumption estimates), (b) the current degree of compliance (based on SAPFF baseline survey), and (c) their attitude (based on a qualitative assessment of willingness to engage with SAPFF). Table 5 presents prioritization criteria and rationale.
Engagement Strategy Prioritization Criteria and Rationale.
Prioritization of companies by compliance and market share.
Throughout the engagement process, SAPFF continues to assess companies’ market share, compliance, and attitude to develop tailored approaches with specific expectations regarding the types of services offered (Table 6; Figure 1). There are 3 aspects to each approach: Expanded TA: TA with a broader scope than fortification; may include business development, product development, marketing, and so on. Direct TA: TA is delivered by on-the-ground consultants rather than remote. Emphasis and rationale: Areas to focus on and rationale.
Tailored Approach Based on Segmentation.
Abbreviation: TA, technical assistance.
Given that Priority 1 companies are less interested in remote technology transfer and require different incentives to drive improvements in their fortification compliance, it has been necessary to adapt and redirect resources to address the needs of this critical market. Thus, based on the criteria outlined below, SAPFF offers expanded TA and/or direct TA as needed, in addition to the foundational services of fortification TA delivered through a remote partners in food solutions (PFS) model. However, it is important to note that in some cases, remote technical support can still provide great value by contributing to the design of expanded TA efforts.
Behavior change to fortification
SAPFF’s ongoing assumption and evidence from the literature suggest that gaps in technical know-how were the only critical barriers to fortification (Figure 2). However, SAPFF has learned that the critical barrier to food fortification—behavior change—cannot be effectively addressed by focusing on food fortification TA projects alone and is more time-consuming and broader in scope than initially envisioned. The earlier assumption thus changed and SAPFF’s theory of change evolved with a greater focus on behavior change. Behavior change is more complex, time-consuming, and resource-intensive than initially envisioned and requires both senior- and technical-level buy-in (Table 7).
Stages of Behavior Change.
Abbreviations: SAPFF, Strengthening African Processors of Fortified Foods; TA, technical assistance; TNS, TechnoServe’s; SWT, sector-wide training.
Changes in SAPFF’s assumption.
This is particularly relevant in the Nigerian context, considering that many supported industries have undergone significant consolidation in recent years; for instance, Olam (Crown Flour Mills) acquired Dangote Flour Mills. Thus, these larger processors generally have sufficient technical capacity institutionalized within their operations.
Stage 1—Introduction to SAPFF
In the case of Tier 1 companies, this stage can last many weeks or even months due to the difficulties in identifying the appropriate contact, often through existing SAPFF networks or personal connections and subsequently successfully scheduling the first meeting. With Tier 2 companies, this stage is typically shorter and less problematic. Midsize companies are more receptive and eager to learn more about possible improvements. At times, CEOs of Tier 2 companies have reached out to SAPFF proactively to engage, such as GAKI in Tanzania. Both sector-wide training (SWT) and CEO forums have proved helpful in establishing contact and creating a positive impression of what TNS has to offer.
Stage 2—Interested in SAPFF
The initial pitch is critical at this stage. Teams use different tactics to ensure a positive reaction, from leveraging outside information on a company to utilizing baseline results and discussing the business case for fortification. At times, given negative reactions to the mention of fortification, SAPFF teams have started their pitch with a value proposition related to broader company needs, building on TNS’s broader offering. One constant element is the need to clarify to the company that SAPFF is not affiliated with the government. Companies at times react with suspicion, asking questions such as “Why is the TA free?” and “What is the catch?”(note 1) concerned that any information they provide will be shared with the government or competitors. Refining the specific company pitch, ensuring confidentiality and reassuring that there will be no detrimental information—sharing is therefore critical. The objective at this stage is for the company to agree to a plant assessment which will allow the team to map out critical gaps and likely interventions. For this to happen, senior leadership and technical staff support are needed.
Stage 3—Willing to fortify
The objective of this stage is to build sufficient trust with the company to have an open and honest discussion about their actual fortification status and challenges. Both the plant assessment and broader TA projects serve this purpose. Companies need to see concrete benefits from interacting with SAPFF and understand TNS’s value proposition as a partner rather than just another nongovernmental organization. Referrals have also proven helpful, particularly the growing relationship with Kenya’s Cereal Millers’ Association.
Stage 4—Committed to fortifying
This is a critical stage, as it moves our relationship with the company from general support to specific engagement around fortification. Assessing the likelihood of a company moving from the previous stage to this one is important to ensure that efforts and resources have not been deployed without return. This stage requires the company to have engaged in a frank conversation about any barriers to sufficient compliance, for instance, assessing differences in compliance levels between its different facilities. It also requires buy-in from both senior leadership and technical staff. Generally, technical staff is supportive of improvements that will boost their company’s performance in this area, and the critical missing element is the CEO buy-in. On the other hand, in some cases, SAPFF staff have experienced the opposite, where even a CEO supportive of SAPFF will not proceed if the technical manager is reluctant to engage with SAPFF.
Stage 5—Improving fortification practices
This is the stage at which the company develops and implements a concrete action plan to close any outstanding compliance gaps. At this stage, fortification of TA projects takes place and, if relevant, matching grant funds are deployed to make necessary investments. Moving from the commitment stage to action is another critical point that SAPFF needs to constantly assess to understand any disconnect between a company’s commitment and subsequent lack of action.
Sector-wide training
Sector-wide trainings were designed for the project mainly to serve as a platform where understanding of fortification could be widely disseminated. However, over time, it also served the dual purpose of providing an opportunity to strengthen relationships with key industry players. In identifying the most pertinent issues across industries, the project could apply a broad stroke approach to helping close knowledge and technology gaps. An example of this can be demonstrated by the regional workshop that was held and focused on supporting edible oil processors in Nigeria to assess Vitamin A fortification levels in their products. The regional workshop was held on September 17 and 19, 2019, for the edible oil processors in Lagos (South-west) and Owerri (Southeast). Facilitating partners were BASF, a major vitamin A supplier and BioAnalyt, the producers of the innovative on-the-spot iCheck devices for measuring vitamin A. In total, 53 participants (23 in Lagos and 30 in Owerri) representing national edible oil processors and premix suppliers attended the workshop. This training was conducted in partnership with BioAnalyt, an innovative company to enable local capacity to monitor food fortification programs effectively by delivering analytical equipment, quality control (QC), and monitoring protocols customized for the local use, and on-the-ground training.
Secondly, SWTs have been leveraged to build a pipeline of companies for further customized TA. For instance, as a result of their participation in sector-wide training in Nigeria, target clients reached out to the project team on several occasions to provide tailored in-plant training on topics ranging from Good Manufacturing Practices to Nigeria Industrial Standards and Regulations for Improving Fortification Compliance in flour, sugar, oil, and salt. Lastly, SWTs can often exemplify the commitment of middle management within participating firms and assess the utility of showcasing results, considering that factory staff may have to forgo their daily duties to receive this training.
SAPFF delivered 20 SWTs, incorporating in-depth curriculums that usually took place for 1 to 2 full days. The topics include: Improving compliance with food fortification standards: challenges and benefits of fortified foods, Food safety and waste management, Fundamental & sustainable approaches to new product development, Holistic margin management, and Establishing fortification compliance in the vegetable oil industry.
Improving compliance with food fortification standards laid the foundation for the importance of food fortification for the population while also shedding light on challenges so far.
Technical assistance
The provision of TA on food fortification through the SAPFF Program was initially designed based on past success and the intent of applying it narrowly to fortification and related business management practices. However, as was described earlier, this proved insufficient to engage with processors, particularly the larger companies that are critical to reaching the majority market share. As such, the scope of TA has been expanded to support improved fortification outcomes and food or human safety and business development.
Moreover, they can indirectly contribute to a company’s commitment and fortification ability. As a prominent industry leader in Nigeria stated, processors view sustainable milling as a prerequisite to fortification (note 2). Processors cannot improve fortification practices unless more pressing business challenges with direct bottom-line impact are addressed, which SAPFF supports companies on through the business development TA. It can also improve operational efficiency to generate savings, providing the company with resources to cover any costs required to close fortification compliance gaps. It can support product quality or marketing improvements, leading to market growth and increasing the ability of their fortified products to penetrate new regions. Food and occupational safety TAs provide an opportunity for SAPFF to work with the broader QC system of the company to link with fortification.
SAPFF TA is categorized into 3:
The second and third of the aforementioned categories serve as the 2 additional pillars that have proven critical for SAPFF to improve its value proposition and offer assistance aligned with the interests of the processors. They also allow SAPFF to build relationships and credibility to discuss fortification, particularly given the lack of interest among processors in food fortification.
The pathway of TA leading to compliance shift is not monolithic. SAPFF observed success in several ways, some of the most effective pathways can be clustered based on client attitude/aptitude (Table 8).
Most Effective TAs by Client Profile.
Abbreviations: TA, technical assistance; SWT, sector-wide training.
Advocating for the inclusion of fortification as a key piece of business model and strategies
More substantial industry commitment for the industry to fortify is imperative. Food processing companies should regard fortification as crucial value addition and recommit to pursuing compliance and self-regulation, including ensuring adequate QA and QC systems and procedures for fortification. One key takeaway from the Business Case for Fortification Report conducted by the project and presented at an inter-ministerial roundtable (IMR) in Nigeria was that senior executives must be approached with the angle of understanding fortification as a mandatory component of production that adds bottom-line value. For instance, promoting and marketing fortification as a mark of product quality to command a winning product position and high market price.
Analysis shows that food fortification costs in Nigeria are already optimized and generally in line with average global benchmarks. Fortification is affordable to large and small companies representing ∼1% of the retail prices, though the cost is marginally lower for larger companies capitalizing on their efficiencies of scale. 18,19 The national cost of full compliance with fortification standards for salt, oil, sugar, and grain flours is estimated at ∼$55 million annually, >1% relative to the range of key industry and consumer benchmarks. 18,19 Based on an average 11.68% annual food inflation, the added one-time price rise of 0.01% to 1% can be easily absorbed in the marketplace. 20
The analysis also revealed that food fortification does not influence the competitiveness of product pricing, which is driven mainly by overall quality, brand recognition, and marketing strategies, further supporting the argument of nominal costs. 19
CEO forum, IMR, and engagement with industry associations
The CEO Forum has been influential in generating commitment and buy-in at the highest level in Nigeria through frank discussions between senior government officials/ministers and company CEOs. This event is co-convened by TNS, Aliko Dangote, Mr Bill Gates, and The Federal Government of Nigeria—recently represented at the highest level by H.E Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo. 21 The SAPFF Program regularly provides compliance progress updates during these meetings, compels organizations to reflect on their status vis-à-vis their peers, and positions the conversation as a cross-sectoral priority. As a result of the inaugural meeting in 2018, a series of commitments were captured in the form of a communique (signed by all participants in attendance) that was developed following the discussion, which outlined collective actions that needed to be pursued to realize industry goals and objectives. Specifically, industry commitment was to incorporate food fortification as a key performance indicator in our corporate measurement framework, with regular reporting to the CEO and board beginning in 2018 and a regular reporting and review of progress at an industry-wide level to improve compliance with fortification regulations.
Additionally, SAPFF held an IMR in collaboration with The Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade, & Investment in Nigeria. It was used as a platform to disseminate relevant project studies such as (1) The Business Case for Fortification 19 ; (2) Landscape Study of Vitamins and Premix for Food Fortification in Nigeria 18 ; and (3) Edible Oil Study—The Opportunity for Oil Fortification with Vitamin A. 22 These documents were aimed at informing the policy recommendations that were subsequently presented during the 2019 CEO Forum. Additionally, the insights and feedback gathered during the IMR meeting were comprehensively captured and incorporated in further iterations of the documents above. This engagement with government stakeholders served as a springboard to the next phase of fulfilling their commitment to enabling the development of robust policies.
Furthermore, and in line with the program’s commitment to exploring effective partnerships, SAPFF fostered a stronger relationship with the Flour Milling Association of Nigeria and held discussions with the chairman to explore ways that the innovative self-regulatory tool of the Micronutrient Fortification Index (MFI) could be more practical in application and positively received.
Creating an Enabling Environment
The importance of an enabling environment for LSFF cannot be overemphasized. Evidence shows some of these enabling characteristics include an emphasis on input imports monitoring as a critical point of intervention, 23,24 harmonized regional standards support for regional trade and government incentives for involuntary fortification. Furthermore, systems that support self-regulation allow for compliance performance to be owned by the industry. Sustaining large-scale and good-quality food fortification requires strategies that incentivize food processors to invest in and consistently meet national food fortification standards where they exist.
Micronutrient Fortification Index
A standardized MFI piloted in Nigeria has provided a ranking of fortified branded products for each participating company based on a score aggregating the effectiveness and efficiency of the company’s systems and levels of product fortification. The MFI has demonstrated the significance of brands as a focal point for investment and industry accountability in food fortification and the power of harnessing the competitive nature of businesses to drive their food fortification performance.
The initiative started with a pilot consisting of well-known brands of 4 companies and has since expanded participation to 15 companies—representing 31 brands—having completed the first full ranking cycle. The publicly listed brands on the index (note 3) now cover approximately 80% of the flour milling market, 40% of the edible oils market, and 88% of the sugar market in Nigeria, reaching over an estimated 134 million people in the country in 2022. The data inputs are made through company-owned digital portals, and the results are published on a secure, web-based public portal which also serves as a gateway for stakeholders to access related information on micronutrient fortification and food quality. The ultimate aim of the MFI is to both leverage private sector efforts to digitalize QA and business processes linked to industrial automation and to harness their competitiveness through voluntary participation in the index to drive improved food fortification performance based on industry best practices and quality benchmarks.
Since LSFF is a fundamental part of national strategies to address micronutrient deficiencies, 25 harnessing the competitive nature of businesses by using the data-driven and digitally enabled MFI brand ranking will lead to the strengthening of factors affecting food processors’ compliance to national fortification standards. In addition to continuous cross-sectoral engagement to enhance the enabling environment, this platform can also be utilized by the industry to catalyze data-driven decision support by companies’ leadership and obtain an optimal index of a company’s contribution to the national fortification agenda, which also serves to level the playing field among competitors. The overall component-based index also enhances industry accountability and provides an incentive for streamlining policy and developing concerted strategies that include industry-driven approaches to QA that complement government regulation and enforcement.
Technical Assistance Effectiveness and Conclusion
The food processing sector’s TA and capacity development are vital in food fortification programs. SAPFF’s experience in Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanzania revealed that significant gaps in knowledge and expertise exist within the processing sector, even in mature food fortification programs. Furthermore, knowledge and capacity gaps are not limited to small-scale industries and exist within large-scale food manufacturers. While the capacity gaps are more uncomplicated and more evident in the small-scale sector, larger companies require more solutions that are complex.
There is a strong perception that TA should primarily be directed toward the SME sector and that larger food processors do not need support. But the SAPFF Program demonstrates that working with the large-scale food-processing industry is important, mainly where the contribution to the overall supply of food by the large-scale sector is disproportionately high. The SAPFF experience also shows knowledge and expertise gaps within the large-scale sector.
There are also several lessons from SAPFF around the delivery of TA that can contribute to future programming: Food companies respond better, adopt better practices on fortification when provided with good quality data, and receive feedback. The private sector generally responds to factual information and base decisions on data. This information, however, has to be granular and actionable—for example, food companies cannot respond to general national fortification compliance rates—they need to have information on which brands are not compliant and, if possible further information and analytics that provide insight into the causes of noncompliance and possible solutions. Food companies are generally more receptive to TA when the TA is sensitive to their business challenges or priorities. Under SAPFF, the most successful engagements and outcomes were when TA offered to companies improved process efficiency, trimmed costs or resonated with the priorities established by the target company. There is a fair amount of fatigue and skepticism toward the development sector from the private sector, primarily fueled by insensitive attempts are shoving fortification assistance at the private sector without sensitivity toward their business objectives, and at times the assistance provided was either too generic or too complex and did not account for client needs. Training does not equate to capacity development. A key observation under SAPFF has been that knowledge retention is significantly lower than the knowledge imparted during training. Furthermore, the application of knowledge that would ultimately realize the purpose of training is even lower. A frequent misconception, particularly in the development arena, is the assumption that capacity is established if information or training is provided on a subject. This is mainly untrue and leads to unreasonable expectations. Training is effective if it is constantly reinforced until it is habitual and more so when the person trained is empowered to utilize their training and exposure to a situation where such training is applied. For example, training marketing folks on QA and control would be ineffective—it may add to their general knowledge or sensitize them but not result in practice improvement. The same observation applies when Government officials are provided training in highly technical areas of food production; sometimes, this is demanded. Training has to be appropriate to the role of the person trained. The SAPFF project, therefore, ensured that the participants invited to various training events matched the course’s content. One of SAPFF’s critical observations in the delivery of SWTs was that it frequently led to establishing contact with food processors. This was better when the participants were matched to the training topic as it built better trust and rapport. While the primary intent of the training is to develop capacity and build skills, the SAPFF project discovered that SWT events had an additional benefit and sometimes enabled engagement with food processors, mainly since the SWT created a platform for networking and establishing rapport with food processors in attendance. There is no one size fits all model for the delivery of TA, and largely dependent on the context, complexity, and needs of different situations. One of the key areas where the SAPFF project could rapidly adapt its approach to the delivery of TA has been in maintaining flexibility around on-site versus remote TA; use of deep knowledge experts versus TNS staff providing solutions directly. Multiple approaches were used with the same client, depending on the situation.
There is a significant need for TA, whether directed to the food industry, agencies, and institutions that support food fortification programs or allied business support service providers such as commercial labs or premix suppliers. If delivered and targeted appropriately, TA can be transformative in changing behavior, and this has undoubtedly been observed within the SAPFF project and led to improved compliance with fortification. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that TA and capacity development, particularly in the food-processing sector, play a vital role in achieving food fortification outcomes by leading to better integration of food fortification in business processes and motivating company leadership to act and accept higher degrees of accountability for company performance.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
