An empirical study on accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the public health responsibility deal food network

Objective: In 2011, the United Kingdom launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks inspired by ‘nudge theory’ to facilitate healthy-lifestyle behaviors. This study used Q methodology to examine stakeholders’ views about responsibility and accountability for healthy food environments to reduce obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Design: A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and civil society sorted 48 statements grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). Factor analysis identified intra-individual statement sorting differences. Results: A three-factor solution explained 64 percent of the variance across three distinct viewpoints: food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments; partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected any government intervention. Conclusions: Building trust and strengthening accountability structures may help stakeholders navigate differences to engage in constructive actions. This research may inform efforts in other countries where voluntary industry partnerships are pursued to address unhealthy food environments.