BUILDING BRIDGES
As Executive Director of Eating Better, a coalition of more than 60 influential non-governmental organisations, I worked towards a fairer, healthier and more sustainable food system. Eating Better brings together diverse sectors from the environment, animal welfare, health and farming. Much of our work involved finding common ground across these different sectors, often requiring negotiation and compromise. Reflecting on successful approaches to cross-sectoral policy in complex areas, here are my top tips:
As Executive Director of Eating Better, a coalition of over 60 influential non-governmental organizations, I worked towards creating a fairer, healthier, and more sustainable food system. Eating Better brought together diverse sectors, including environment, animal welfare, health, and farming. Much of our work involved finding common ground across these sectors, often requiring negotiation and compromise. Reflecting on successful approaches to cross-sectoral policy in complex areas, here are my top tips:
1. Maintain diversity within the group and showcase growth and momentum. A key strength of Eating Better is its exceptional diversity of perspectives. The coalition brought together voices from farming, health, social justice, and other fields, fostering a genuine interest among members in learning from viewpoints outside their usual networks or areas of expertise. Maintaining and highlighting this diversity has been vital to the coalition's success and momentum.
2. Establish shared ownership of goals and strategies. I led the design and implementation of the coalition’s new strategy, the ‘Better by Half Roadmap’. This involved building consensus around a target and a range of actions to be undertaken by the most influential stakeholders. We started with a comprehensive list of evidence-based levers or actions, then shortlisted based on their effectiveness and the willingness of members to collectively advocate for them (e.g. the common ground). Certain approaches were excluded, such as labelling (which placed too much responsibility on individuals) and taxation (viewed as politically unfeasible in the short term) were excluded. This process ensured buy-in from all members and a clear, actionable path forward.
3. Address the trade-offs directly and collaboratively. Eating Better was founded on the understanding that focusing on a single issue can unintentionally cause harm in other areas. For instance, the promotion of chicken as a healthier and environmentally friendly option - despite flaws in these arguments - has driven increased production and confinement of animals. In response, we collectively agreed on the necessity to reduce chicken consumption.
In another case, we developed a shared framework to define ‘better meat’ encompassing eight impact areas of livestock production such as greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, animal welfare, and pollution. This process helped identify common ground, enabling a shared vision for improvement that resonated across different interest groups.
I’d love to hear about others’ experiences and insights to expand on these approaches.
