Value chains encompass the organization, coordination and linkages, power dynamics, and governance between actors (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011; Ingram et al., 2018). Value chains foster the dynamic relationships and multi-actor interactions among the diverse actors involved in production to consumption activities for value creation and market linkages (Ayele et al., 2012), through knowledge exchange, information sharing, capacity strengthening, joint learning, and continuous problem solving (Kilelu et al., 2017; Maestre et al., 2017). Peterson et al. (2001) distinguished five major governance structures, namely spot/cash markets, specification contracts, relation-based alliances, equity-based alliances, and vertical integration. In contrast to the classification by Peterson et al. (2001) and Gereffi et al. (2005) developed five types of global food chain governance—market, modular, relational, captive, and hierarchy—which range from low to high levels of explicit coordination and power asymmetry.

According to Trienekens (2011), different disciplines such as new institutional economics, social network theory, and supply chain management, have contributed to the development of value chain theory (Arato et al., 2017). The theory of new institutional economics suggests that the behavior of economic agents is influenced by the social and institutional environments in which they operate (Jordaan et al., 2014). The social environment refers to the social dynamics (i.e., customs, norms and traditions) within communities of actors, and the social capital of the individuals influences collective actions (Jordaan et al., 2014). The institutional environment contains the rules and regulations for creating order to protect individuals against opportunistic behavior, it also encompasses the incentives for guiding the behavior of economic agents (Milagrosa, 2007; Ouma et al., 2017).

However, institutional economics has been criticized since it ignores the informal, socially embedded relationships in producing stable contract conditions (Demsetz, 1988). Social relationships, such as network and trust, play a very important role in shaping value chains, e.g., in the context of Asian culture and relationship exchanges (Zhang and Aramyan, 2009). Social network theory explains how aspects such as trust and reputation, beyond economic considerations, shape value chains and influence the structure and length of value chains (Trienekens, 2011).

Although supply chain management was argued to pay little attention to supply chain governance (Vlachos, 2014), supply chain management theory has contributed to the development of value chain theory. Some studies show that value chain governance is equivalent to supply chain governance, which refers to the rules, structures, and institutions that guide, control, and lead supply chains, providing the framework within which supply chain transactions are negotiated and executed (Vlachos, 2014; Amentae et al., 2018).

Management, as used in this paper, relates to entrepreneurial tasks and decisions that relate to the functioning of a business or a food chain. It comprises processes of planning, decision-making, organizing, leading, controlling human resources, financial, physical, and information resources to reach goals efficiently and effectively. Food (supply) chain management encompasses all activities that move food from production to consumption, including production, storage, distribution, processing, packaging, retailing, and marketing. The management decisions made by the respective actors at the different stages of a chain have implications for other stages. They influence the types of food available and accessible, as well as the way they are produced and consumed, and thus the nutritional value of the food produced. However, and as indicated earlier, in this paper, we focus on governance and the process of governing food systems and chains, and the way different actors shape food systems, food chains and their development.

Many studies on food chain governance have examined informal socio-cultural factors, governance structures and dynamics, and intra-chain relationships and the distribution of power (Milagrosa, 2007; Oro and Pritchard, 2011; Hattersley, 2013; Jordaan et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2019). Agri-food chains are unique and differentiated from other product chains largely due to the perishable nature of inventory and seasonality, which significantly affects the logistics of each stage in the food chain, and due to special consumer demands for food safety and quality (Kline et al., 2016). The whole chain faces both general risks and unique vulnerabilities because of the limited shelf life of food, and variability in quality and availability of raw materials (Stone and Rahimifard, 2018).

Several studies adopted a wider perspective on food system governance, including the role of the institutional environment (Tallontire et al., 2011; Arato et al., 2017; Guéneau, 2018). Arato et al. (2017) adapted the Rural Web analysis, which has been elaborated by Van der Ploeg and Marsden (2008) as an approach to sustainable rural development, to the analysis of food chain governance. The strength of this wider approach is that the interconnections between six different dimensions including sustainability, novelty production, endogeneity, social capital, new institutional arrangement, and the governance of markets are explicitly considered. This in turn facilitates more encompassing strategies for the integration of small producers into local, regional, national and international markets while simultaneously enhancing rural livelihoods (Arato et al., 2017). Tallontire et al. (2011) and Guéneau (2018) suggest that the interplay between actors who are not directly involved in the chain may have important influence on governance, and that this should be taken into account (an example of this is the emergence of Private Sustainability Initiatives through roundtables, steering councils and other multi-stakeholder platforms).

Agri-food chains have food quality and safety characteristics that can contribute to credibility and consumer acceptance. Examples are food safety, healthy and nutritional food, authenticity, sustainable production processes and Fair Trade (Gachukia, 2015). Third party certification helps to guarantee these requirements (Gachukia, 2015). It also enhances risk management and fosters collaboration among food chain actors (Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2013). The emergence of Alternative Food Networks (AFNs), such as community-supported agriculture, farmer's markets, producer and consumer cooperatives, regional and local food hubs, is expected to improve both environmental and socio-economic aspects of food provisioning in terms of rural development, consumers' needs, and sustainable modes of production (Renting and Marsden, 2003; Knickel et al., 2008; Berti and Mulligan, 2016; Bui et al., 2019; Sureau et al., 2019). AFNs are generally perceived as coexisting with and in opposition to mainstream food chains characterized by industrialization and standardization. Priorities of AFNs are different in terms of supporting diversity, de-concentration in the food sector, and reconnecting food to socio-cultural and physical territorial contexts (Bui et al., 2019).

In view of our focus on Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), smallholder inclusion and rural livelihoods are key dimensions in a meaningful assessment of governance arrangements. AFNs are characterized by collective action and they play an important role in integrating smallholders into high quality, high value food markets (Knickel et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2018). Likewise, the inclusive supply chain model helps address the challenges of integrating the poor in value chains (FAO, 2014). Through horizontal coordination, smaller food chain actors perform collective actions to reduce difference in power between actors and lower transaction costs (FAO, 2014). Inclusive business is a powerful way of helping drive economic opportunities for small-scale farmers, local and small agribusinesses, and the rural unemployed who would otherwise be left behind (Achterbosch et al., 2014). Ouma et al. (2017) suggested that horizontal integration of smallholder pig producers in Uganda into collectives helps improve their bargaining power and reduce transaction costs. Knickel et al. (2008) also demonstrated that European farmers benefit from collective action due to the growing power of retailers and the pressure resulting from the decline of producer prices and agricultural subsidies. Ros-Tonen et al. (2015) add that inclusive food chain collaboration also fosters adaptive learning and empowerment processes related to smallholder productivity and market integration.

Based on the above, we can summarize the range of objectives that can relate to alternative food chain governance arrangements (Table 1).

The elaboration of the framework for assessing food system governance arrangements that we present in this article is based on six urban and peri-urban regions in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): Cotonou (Benin), Bahir Dar (Ethiopia), Kisumu (Kenya), Rwamwanja (Uganda), and Lusaka and Chongwe (both in Zambia). When selecting the cases for studying food chain governance arrangements, attention was paid to ensure diversity in the following key criteria:

The mapping (and assessment presented later) was supported by local partners. During scheduled meetings, focus group discussions were carried out. Guidelines and a checklist were developed and shared with local partners to provide background information on the study and to ensure the comparability of the data collected. Guidelines and checklist related to the key products for the region, the processes and actors involved in the value chain, product and geographical mapping, and food system governance related information. The focus groups in each region included researchers, social entrepreneurs, farmers, consumers, food businesses and policy makers as key stakeholders. Where gaps remained, additional data was obtained through a smaller number of online calls (due to travel restrictions in place during the study period).

The six urban and peri-urban regions in SSA and related local partners are summarized in Table 2.

In the following, we map the status-quo of key agri-food chains in the six regions. The mapping provides the basis for the subsequent assessment of agri-food chain governance arrangements.

According to the findings on food chain governance (specifically Milagrosa, 2007; Oro and Pritchard, 2011; Hattersley, 2013; Jordaan et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2019), critical components of governance arrangements can be identified. They include the institutional environment, socio-cultural factors, governance structures and dynamics, and intra-chain relationships and power.

In line with this, we can identify the following key areas for our assessment framework:

In addition to these four areas, attention needs to be paid to the objectives of agri-food chain governance in the six regions: sustainability, healthy and nutritious food products for local consumers, empowering small and middle-sized farms, processors, and retailers. The common challenges in these six regions include heavy reliance on cereal-based food products, low accessibility to and consumption of nutritious food such as fruits, vegetables, fish and flesh foods, non-sustainable vegetable production, inadequate storage facilities and high post-harvest losses, limited availability of market information, and low productivity. Connected with these are high levels of malnutrition and food poverty. Related to food system governance, the relations between different sized farms, food SMEs, retailers and consumers are playing a central role.

Figure 7 provides a summary overview of the resulting structure for the assessment framework. The food chain activities and relevant chain actors include production of food by farmers and cooperatives, processing/packaging of food by processors firms, distribution/marketing of food by middlemen, wholesalers and retailers, and consumption of food by consumers.

Based on the above and the results of our literature review, we will in the following identify key indicators on enabling environment and institutions, governance structures, governance structure dynamics, and relationship strengths. The indicators ought to also reflect the objectives for the agri-food chain in six regions (i.e., sustainability, healthy and nutritious food products for local consumers, empowering small and middle-sized farms, processors and retailers).

When identifying suitable indicators, we also consider the commonly used requirements for indicators: valid, precise, practical, affordable and simple, reliable, sensitive, clear, useful and owned. Particular attention was paid to selecting indicators that will be useful for decision-making, foster accountability and learning; and that stakeholders think that their use makes sense.

Table 3 provides an overview of the indicators that have been selected. Each food chain governance aspect has between three and five indicators that can be monitored and assessed. Each indicator can be measured (or estimated) through one or more variables and may be expressed in quantitative and/or qualitative terms (e.g., low, medium, high).

In total there are total 15 indicators for the four dimensions of chain governance. The indicator of governance structure is underpinned by studies from Peterson et al. (2001) and Gereffi et al. (2005). As developed by Peterson et al. (2001) and Gereffi et al. (2005), the major hybrid forms of governance structures range from cash (or spot) markets at the one end and hierarchy or vertical integration at the other end, which vary considerably in levels of explicit coordination and power asymmetry.

Regarding the data required for each of these indicators, it should be noted that the detailed methods of monitoring and assessing the indicators will be further developed in consultation with local partners and relevant stakeholders in the six regions. The overview in Table 4 on the data collection required provided is indicative.

In this section we present the results of a first application of the assessment framework in the six study regions. The aim is to check in how far the approach can help to identify conflicting goals, disconnects and tensions in food systems, and to formulate strategies for achieving more efficient, equitable and sustainable agri-food systems. It is expected that the testing can also provide indications for a further refinement of the framework.

The discussion builds on the characterization of the six study regions and main food chains in section Characterization of the six study regions and main food chains. Based on the structured interviews with various actors, including researchers, social entrepreneurs, farmers, activists, businesses and policy makers, and the focus group discussions, the collected data are synthesized to capture relevant information about food chain governance objectives, challenges and opportunities. The key question is in how far the food system changes proposed by key actors in the six regions can be corroborated using the assessment framework. To start with, challenges and opportunities are compared with envisaged changes (Table 5).

In Table 6 we compare the food chain governance improvements proposed by regional actors with the criteria contained in the assessment framework. Overall, the proposed improvements by regional actors in response to the challenges they are confronted with, and their governance objectives mostly correspond to the indicators contained in the assessment framework. Especially the first dimension of an enabling governance environment, the third dimension of governance structure dynamics and the fourth dimension of the strength of relationships are important for regional food chain actors.

At the same time, we can see that Indicators 5, 6, and 7 in the second dimension relating to governance structures did not raise concerns in the proposed approaches in the study regions. Similarly, Indicator 1 ‘Socio-cultural factors (informal)', Indicator 3 ‘Non-market mechanisms (e.g., quality standards and initiatives)', and Indicator 15 ‘Multi-stakeholder platforms' (e.g., public campaigns on communication about healthy food and nutritious dietary patterns, platform on sustainable agri-food system) have not been reflected by regional food system actors.

In further work and discussions with regional actors, particular attention ought to be paid to these aspects, to a further substantiation of disconnects and tensions in given food systems, ways to address these in more transparent and equitable ways, and to a piloting of potential improvements.