With rapid socioeconomic development and industrial restructuring, the food supply chain continues to expand, making food safety issues increasingly complex and systemic. This poses a significant threat to public health, local economies, and government credibility worldwide (1). The growing interconnectedness of the global food market further exacerbates this complexity, demanding robust food safety management systems across diverse geopolitical landscapes (2). In food safety incidents, a substantial proportion of foodborne illnesses originate from household-consumed foods (3), highlighting the broad impact of food safety across the entire consumption chain. In China, despite notable progress in food safety governance, the development of food safety frameworks remains uneven and inadequate due to inherent regional, urban–rural, and dual institutional structures, presenting numerous challenges (4). Food safety incidents not only affect public health but also exert complex and heterogeneous impacts on food prices and regional economies. According to the State Administration for Market Regulation’s inspection report, China completed 6.7949 million batches of food safety supervision sampling in 2024, with an overall non-compliance rate of 2.96% (5). Among these, the Administration conducted 16,814 batches of inspections at its own level, reporting 244 non-compliant batches—a 141.58% increase from the 101 non-compliant batches in 2023. Lower non-compliance rates were observed in high-consumption food categories, including grain products (0.54%), edible oils (0.72%), meat products (0.81%), egg products (0.12%), and dairy products (0.09%). Key issues identified included pesticide residue exceeding standards (39.56%) and microbial contamination (16.73%), with some fruit products showing excessive total bacterial counts; 85 batches exhibited improper food additive usage, such as illegal benzoic acid and its sodium salts in dried wood ear mushrooms, and excessive cyclamate in flower rolls (6). Additionally, 66 batches failed quality standards, including walnut oil with excessive peroxide values and special dietary foods with non-compliant nutritional content. Frequent high-profile safety incidents occurred (7), including three Anhui pre-cooked meal manufacturers exposed for using “offcuts” containing excessive lymph nodes and lipomas to produce preserved vegetable pork belly, and “Tinghua wine” falsely advertising medical benefits like “boosting immunity” and “anti-aging.”

Food safety risk management is recognized as a critical cross-sectoral issue requiring interagency collaboration. However, implementation often suffers from low coordination levels, inadequate process oversight, limited information sharing, and incomplete disclosure (8, 9). China’s current food safety governance system frequently faces challenges such as overlapping departmental responsibilities, insufficient implementation of corporate accountability, and limited public participation, urgently necessitating enhanced collaborative governance efficiency. As a major agricultural and food processing hub, Jilin Province’s food safety governance effectiveness directly impacts regional livelihood security and industrial high-quality development.

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has recognized the importance of adopting an interdisciplinary approach to detect and reduce food fraud. Within global food safety management practices, the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system is widely regarded as an effective tool for preventing foodborne illnesses. It assists businesses in establishing a scientific and systematic food safety management system, thereby ensuring product safety and compliance. HACCP serves as a core component of numerous national and international standards (10). As a systematic preventive approach, HACCP meticulously analyzes each stage of the food production process to identify potential physical, chemical, and biological hazards. It establishes Critical Control Points (CCPs) to prevent, eliminate, or reduce these hazards to acceptable levels, thereby identifying, evaluating, and controlling significant threats to food safety. Current academic research on food safety governance primarily focuses on regulatory policies, risk prevention and control, and traceability system development (11, 12). Studies by Hafiz Muhammad Rizwan Abid (11) and others indicate that internet-based tools are increasingly popular for tracking, tracing, and ensuring food safety throughout the food chain, underscoring the necessity of integrated systems across the food supply chain. Yi et al. (4) further discuss how institutional pressures influence food safety governance within emerging supply chains. By examining the complex interplay between food safety incidents, public health concerns, and food price risks—along with the dynamic and uncertain nature of risk transmission—they construct an integrated conceptual framework encompassing institutional pressures, food safety practices, and governance effectiveness.

However, existing research exhibits significant limitations in quantitatively assessing the performance of multi-stakeholder collaborative governance, particularly regarding the inherent ambiguity and hierarchical nature of complex food safety systems. The suitability of relevant evaluation frameworks remains inadequately addressed. Traditional quantitative studies often rely on single evaluation indicators or expert subjective judgments, lacking systematic consideration of the multidimensional and cross-level attributes of food safety governance performance. This approach may struggle to comprehensively and accurately capture the core essence and actual level of food safety performance. As demonstrated in Yingxue Ren’s research (13), the core control mechanisms and key safeguards underpinning food safety performance enhancement exhibit multidimensional complexity. This further underscores the academic value and practical necessity of developing a comprehensive evaluation methodology that integrates systematicity, comprehensiveness, and adaptability.

This study, grounded in the provincial context of Jilin, aims to construct a scientific indicator system for collaborative food safety governance. It comprehensively captures the multifaceted characteristics of food safety management, proposes optimization recommendations for collaborative governance tailored to Jilin Province, and provides decision support for local governments to refine their food safety governance systems. This enhances understanding and practice in food safety governance. The DPSIR model originated from the need for comprehensive assessment of complex environmental issues. a structured tool promoted by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to describe environmental issues and their management responses. It views environmental systems as dynamic processes whose health is shaped by five interconnected elements: drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses. Applied to food safety management, it facilitates more systematic analysis of the causes, manifestations, consequences, and countermeasures of food safety issues, helping policymakers and researchers understand the relationship between environmental changes and human activities (14). To optimize the evaluation of food safety management systems, this study constructed a performance evaluation system for collaborative governance of food safety in Jilin Province based on the DPSIR framework. Quantitative analysis was conducted using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) methods. This integrated AHP-FCE framework systematically deconstructs complex multi-criteria decision problems into hierarchical structural models while effectively addressing inherent fuzziness and uncertainty in human subjective judgments and qualitative factors. Through empirical research methods including field interviews, expert consultations, and structured scoring, this study identifies and selects key indicators influencing collaborative governance performance, subsequently employing fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to quantify governance levels.

This research demonstrates significant innovative value at both theoretical and practical levels. Theoretically, by integrating the systemic thinking of collaborative governance theory, the deconstruction logic of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the quantitative capabilities of fuzzy set theory for uncertainty, this study constructs an integrated evaluation framework. This not only effectively fills a research gap in multi-stakeholder collaborative performance quantification methodologies but also advances the instrumentalization and empirical development of public management theory within complex Chinese contexts. It provides new analytical perspectives and theoretical tools for deciphering the interactive efficacy of diverse governance actors. Practically, the developed framework overcomes the limitations of traditional evaluations—which are dominated by qualitative approaches and static, singular perspectives—by enabling precise diagnosis and dynamic assessment of regional food safety collaborative governance levels through quantifiable, structured, and model-based pathways. The research outcomes provide regulatory agencies with decision support featuring clear operational guidance, aiding in optimizing governance resource allocation and refining collaborative mechanism design. This ultimately enhances the overall effectiveness and resilience of the food safety governance system.

To effectively transform food safety governance into a positive force promoting health equity for all, it is necessary to drive a fundamental shift in the policy paradigm from “pursuing scale and efficiency” to “practicing precise fairness.” Based on the analytical framework of the DPSIR model and the empirical findings of this study, we propose the following systematic and operational policy recommendations.

The findings of this study regarding the unfairness in the structure and procedures of food safety governance are in line with the conclusions of relevant international research. For instance, studies that apply multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate food safety and security in other contexts also emphasize the crucial role of fair resource allocation and inclusive participation. Ocampos applied the fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS technology to identify sustainable manufacturing strategies for food production, emphasizing that considerations of fairness and justice are indispensable parts of building a resilient food system, rather than merely technical efficiency (21). Similarly, research on prioritizing climate change and food security, applying AHP and social network Analysis (SNA) also indicates that the effectiveness of governance is often hindered by uneven influence among stakeholders and unequal access to resources (22), which is consistent with the characteristics of “strong government, weak society, and weak enterprises” that we have observed. The experience of applying the AHP-FCE framework in environmental and food safety evaluations in other regions [such as urban water cycle health assessment (14)] also confirms that such integrated models are effective in capturing the performance of complex multi-dimensional systems, including the equity dimension. These cross-regional similarities enhance the validity of our research results and indicate that the equity deficit discovered in Jilin Province is not an isolated case, but rather reflects the common challenges faced in the process of transforming from top-down regulation to inclusive and multi-subject governance under different governance contexts.

The multi-dimensional evaluation framework centered on fairness developed in this study stands in sharp contrast to most previous governance performance research that focused on overall compliance rate, regulatory coverage rate or emergency response speed. Traditional assessment often regards “efficiency” and “fairness” as potentially conflicting goals, or marginalizes the fairness dimension in the assessment. The innovation of this framework lies in systematically integrating “structural equity,” “process equity” and “outcome equity” into an operational evaluation index system. It not only responds to the question of “whether governance is effective,” but also delves deeper into “for whom governance is effective and where it is effective,” thereby providing new analytical tools and empirical evidence for understanding and solving the problem of uneven distribution of governance outcomes.

At the “Driving Force” level, the primary task is to carry out value reshaping and top-level design. Local governments should establish “minimizing the gap in food safety guarantees among different groups and regions” as a core strategic goal that is on par with “maintaining a high overall pass rate.” It is suggested that the “Action Plan for Promoting Food Safety Fairness in Jilin Province” be formulated and released, clearly incorporating fairness indicators (such as resource balance index, participation inclusiveness index, satisfaction group difference coefficient, etc.) into the annual performance assessment system for governments at all levels and relevant departments. Through institutionalized accountability and incentives, the abstract concept of fairness should be transformed into specific governance action guidelines.

At the “Pressure” and “State” levels, policy intervention needs to be more targeted and dedicated to addressing the identified deficiencies in fairness. In response to the structural imbalance of resources, a dynamic fiscal transfer payment mechanism should be established based on indicators such as the Gini coefficient of regulatory resources. A “Special Fund for Enhancing the Governance Capacity of Food Safety in Grassroots and Rural Areas” should be set up, specifically for supplementing regulatory personnel in remote areas, and providing modern rapid testing equipment and mobile laboratories. In response to the differences in the capabilities of market entities, it is necessary to design precise enabling tools. For instance, “Food Safety Compliance Service Vouchers” should be issued to small and micro enterprises to subsidize their certification consultation and product testing fees. At the same time, the fulfillment of “fair responsibilities” by enterprises (such as ensuring employee training, providing capacity support to vulnerable suppliers, and maintaining information transparency) should be included in the enterprise credit evaluation, and preferential policies in financing, procurement and other aspects should be granted. In response to the barriers to social participation opportunities, it is necessary to develop an “inclusive participation toolkit,” including designing voice navigation complaint systems for the older adults and people with disabilities, setting up physical food safety information stations in communities and rural areas, and ensuring through legislation or administrative regulations that in the process of food safety standard formulation, policy hearings and other links, Consumer representatives, especially those of disadvantaged groups, occupy the minimum proportion stipulated by law, and their right to speak is guaranteed procedurally.

At the “Impact” and “Response” levels, it is urgently necessary to build a sensitive and intelligent fairness monitoring and response system. Firstly, multi-source data should be integrated to develop an “Intelligent Monitoring Dashboard for Food Safety Fairness,” achieving real-time visualization and early warning of key fairness indicators such as the distribution of resources in each county and city, the targeting of random inspections, the timeliness of complaint response, and public trust. This enables decision-makers to have an intuitive understanding of the geographical and group distribution of fairness shortcomings, just as they would pay attention to the pass rate of random inspections. Secondly, a new model of “fair regulation based on risk assessment” should be implemented, and more regulatory resources should be proactively allocated to the high-risk weak links revealed by the monitoring dashboard - that is, specific areas (such as urban–rural fringe areas) and specific business types (such as small and micro catering, food vendors around schools) where fairness indicators remain persistently low but risk hazards are relatively high. Finally, it is necessary to improve the mechanism of “fair-oriented emergency management and risk communication.” When a food safety incident occurs, the emergency response plan should give priority to assessing the potential impact of the incident on vulnerable groups such as children, the older adults, and low-income communities, and ensure that rescue and compensation measures can cover them fairly and promptly. All risk communication materials must be produced in multiple versions (such as short text versions, illustrated versions, and dialect audio versions) to ensure that the public of different educational levels and information acquisition habits can accurately and indiscriminately understand the nature of the risks and the necessary protective actions.

In conclusion, this study ultimately calls for a fundamental ideological shift: The ultimate mission of food safety governance should not merely be to pursue the bottom-line safety of “no incidents” or the technical performance of “high pass rates”, but should be dedicated to achieving the goal that “no one is forced to bear disproportionate food safety risks due to their socioeconomic status, residential area or identity characteristics.” Only through the reengineering of the governance system with fairness and justice as its core values, and precisely targeting the groups and regions that need resources, opportunities and capacity building, can a solid social foundation for the realization of the “Healthy China” strategy be truly consolidated, making food safety a powerful booster for promoting the health and fairness of all citizens, rather than a new line of social differentiation.

This research has certain limitations in design and implementation. Firstly, the research conclusions are mainly based on the survey data of Jilin Province in 2025, with limited geographical coverage and a relatively small sample size (n = 33). Moreover, they are mainly based on expert scores and cross-sectional data. Therefore, the conclusions have deficiencies in terms of universality in other regions across the country, long-term dynamic evolution trends, and strict causal inference capabilities. Secondly, although the research method adopts the AHP-FCE model and fuzzy processing to reduce subjectivity, the setting of indicator weights, expert judgments, and the quantification of some soft indicators (such as public trust and participation depth) still cannot completely avoid subjective biases. Moreover, the systematic policy recommendations proposed have not yet been tested in practice, and their practical operability, cost and effectiveness need to be further verified.

Based on the findings and limitations of this study, the following suggestions are put forward for future research.

Future research can be expanded to the whole country or multiple typical provinces for comparative analysis to test the universality and regional differences of the issue of fairness in food collaborative governance. It is suggested to conduct long-term tracking studies or panel data surveys to capture the dynamic evolution trends of governance equity and the long-term effects of policy interventions. In terms of methods, big data, spatial analysis and causal inference models (such as the difference-in-differences method) can be further integrated to strengthen the empirical test of the fair transmission mechanism of “structure - process - result.” In addition, it is necessary to enhance interdisciplinary cooperation, introduce perspectives from public health, sociology, etc., deepen the understanding of the intrinsic connection between health equity and governance equity, and explore the development of more systematic and operational equity monitoring indicators and assessment tools to promote the transformation of food safety governance towards a “precise equity” paradigm.

Based on the DPSIR model and the comprehensive evaluation results of AHP-FCE, this study systematically analyzed the operational logic and practical performance of the collaborative governance system for food safety in Jilin Province. The DPSIR framework clearly Outlines the causal chain of this system, as shown in Figure 1: social and economic development and consumption upgrade, as the fundamental driving forces, have promoted the growth of governance demands; However, the complexity of the industrial structure, the insufficiency of enterprises in implementing their main responsibilities, and the imbalance in information construction jointly constitute the internal pressure faced by governance. Against this backdrop, the current governance situation, defined by the government regulatory system, enterprise quality control and the level of social participation, directly determines the direction of core impacts such as food safety incident risks, public trust levels and the sustainable development of the industry. The linkage mechanism among the government, enterprises and society, the digital regulatory capacity and the completeness of the risk prevention and control system all centrally reflect the system’s response efficiency to challenges.

Through the quantitative calculation of the AHP-FCE model and the qualitative analysis of expert interviews, the comprehensive score of the collaborative governance of food safety in Jilin Province was 3.63 points (out of 5 points), which was generally at a “good” level. This result indicates that the governance system of this province has laid a foundation and achieved initial success in terms of institutional construction and policy implementation. Specifically, the government’s regulatory capacity scored the highest (4.0 points), highlighting the significant advantages of the Jilin Provincial Government in terms of a complete regulatory system, standardized law enforcement, and cross-departmental coordination, and demonstrating strong institutional enforcement and policy synergy. The quality of third-party testing and public participation both received 3.5 points, indicating that social forces and professional institutions have played an auxiliary role in governance. However, there is still significant room for improvement in the depth of information sharing and the efficiency of data integration. In contrast, the score for corporate responsibility fulfillment is only 3.0 points, making it the weakest link in the system. This reflects that the main body of enterprises is still passive in terms of responsibility awareness and self-discipline mechanisms, and lacks internal motivation.

From the perspective of the overall evolution trend, the food safety governance system in Jilin Province is undergoing a structural transformation from “single-center supervision” to “multi-subject collaborative governance.” The construction of institutionalization and informatization has achieved phased results, marking a crucial transitional period for the system to move from “institutional establishment” to “mechanism maturity.” However, this transformation process still faces multiple structural challenges: issues such as blurred boundaries of responsibilities, fragmented collaboration mechanisms, and poor intercommunication among information systems have not been fundamentally resolved. The participation of enterprises and social entities remains at the surface level and fails to form a deep synergy, which leads the government to continuously bear an excessive regulatory burden and further restricts the improvement of the overall efficiency and sustainability of the governance system.

Further focusing on the perspective of fairness, this study finds that there exists a multi-dimensional and systematic “fairness deficit” in the collaborative governance of food safety in Jilin Province. This deficit is no accident but is deeply rooted in the structure and process of the governance system. Specifically, it is manifested in the structural mismatch of governance resources in terms of space and hierarchy, making rural and underdeveloped areas become low-lying areas for supervision and services. Market entities and the general public face significant barriers to opportunities and capabilities during the participation process, resulting in small and micro enterprises and groups with low socioeconomic status being at a disadvantage in terms of responsibility fulfillment and interest expression. However, the cross-departmental and cross-subject collaborative mechanisms remain loose and formalistic, making it difficult to pool a systematic synergy to correct unfairness. These factors are intertwined, preventing food safety, a fundamental public good, from covering all groups fairly and objectively exacerbating health risk inequalities based on region, occupation and class.

In-depth analysis reveals that the fair transmission chain of “structure - process - result” has broken at a key link. Although the government has shown strong performance in “structural” investment, this advantage of administrative dominance has not been effectively transformed into extensive, fair and in-depth “process-oriented” participation. The intrinsic motivation for responsibility among enterprises, especially micro and small entities, remains insufficient. Public participation is clearly stratified in terms of capabilities and opportunities, ultimately making it difficult to achieve “result-oriented” fairness - that is, the equalization of risk exposure, safety perception and trust levels. A prominent contradiction lies in the fact that the high-weight government regulatory efficiency has not effectively driven the low-weight corporate responsibility fulfillment and the quality of public participation, revealing that in the current collaborative model, administrative pressure has not fully stimulated fair actions at the market and social levels, and the value of fairness has been significantly diluted in the process of transmission.

These findings collectively point to a core governance revelation: while pursuing management efficiency, the dimension of fairness must be systematically and measurably incorporated into governance goals and evaluation systems. Fairness should not merely be an abstract value that is called for, but must become a concrete governance dimension that is continuously monitored, evaluated and held accountable. This means that future food safety governance policies need to set clear fairness indicators (such as the resource balance index and the participation inclusiveness index) just as they set the “sampling inspection pass rate” target, and establish corresponding data collection and monitoring feedback mechanisms.

Therefore, this study ultimately calls for a fundamental paradigm shift: The ultimate mission of food safety governance should be dedicated to ensuring that no one is forced to bear disproportionate food safety risks due to their socioeconomic status, residential area, or identity characteristics. Only through the reconstruction of a governance system based on evidence and oriented towards fairness, accurately identifying and supporting the most vulnerable groups and regions, can the social foundation of the “Healthy China” strategy be truly consolidated, and food safety governance become a powerful engine for promoting health equity for all.