Strategies to Expand Corporate Autonomy by the Tobacco, Alcohol and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Industry: A Scoping Review of Reviews
Creators: name: Weiger, Caitlin
name: Hoe, Connie
name: Alonso, Fernanda
name: Cohen, Joanna
name: Minosa, Marela
name: Koon, Adam
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation
subject: Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration
subject: Health Policy
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Economic Policy

description: Background literature review Consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food are responsible for two thirds of noncommunicable diseases [1]. As a result, the public health community has become increasingly concerned about the multinational corporations selling these products and commercial determinants of health [2,3], especially as corporations gain greater autonomy and threaten government capacity to promote equality and health [4]. Corporation can threaten health by interfering with the passage of health policies what would reduce health disparities [5–8], and marketing unhealthy products to disadvantaged or vulnerable populations [9–13]. The practices of multinational corporations that sell these products use their political and economic influence to change the social and political environment that shapes consumer choices and health outcomes [2,14–17]. With a few exceptions [17–21], most work in this area has focused on the corporate practices of single industries [22], and there is a need to continue studying commercial determinants of health and multinational corporations as disease vectors [3]. Review question This review aims to answer the following research questions: 1) Is there an emergent taxonomy of strategies used by the tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) industries to expand corporate autonomy? 2) How are these strategies similar and how are they different? Criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies For a review to be included in this analysis, it had to: • Be in a peer-reviewed journal; • Be published between 1984 to 2021; • Be in English; • Have used a systematic approach in their search for literature (e.g. systematic reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, qualitative evidence synthesis, etc); • Review at least some peer reviewed literature; • Identify corporate practices from tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-sweetened beverage multinational corporations. Reviews were excluded if they: • Were not published in peer-reviewed journals; • Were not pubished between 1984-2021; • Were not in English; • Did not use a systematic approach in their literature search or did not include their search methodology; • Did not include any peer reviewed literature in their review; • Did not identify corporate practices from tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-sweetened beverage multinational corporations. Types of studies, populations, interventions/exposures, outcome measures As a review of reviews, this study only included studies that met the definition of a review. Reviews were defined as having a systematic search for peer reviewed literature in their methods. Search strategy for identification of studies With the assistance of a librarian, we used the following four concepts to organize our search – (1) tobacco/alcohol/sugar-sweetened beverage, 2) corporation, 3) tactics, and 4) review/qualitative synthesis. For databases with indexing (e.g. Pubmed, Embase), the consulted librarian recommended additional relevant terms from the indexing list. See below for a comprehensive list of search terms for each database. Study selection methods Database searchers were carried out in June 2021. 10,198 articles were identified. All identified articles were imported into Covidence to manage study selection and evaluation. C.H., C.W., and M.M. screened abstracts. Articles were excluded during abstract screening if they clearly failed to meet any inclusion criteria or clearly met any exclusion criteria. If it was unclear if an article did or did not meet inclusion/exclusion criteria, it was forwarded to full text review. 858 articles were forwarded to full text review, where the full text was reviewed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. M.M., C.W., F.A. and C.H. participated in full text review, and inclusion questions were discussed via email. 59 articles met inclusion criteria after full text review and were for extraction, analysis, and categorization. Assessment of methodological quality (if applicable) Not applicable Data extraction and synthesis Reviews were charted whereby the full text was read and strategies and examples of strategies were extracted from the results section. M.M., C.W., F.A. and C.H. participated in article charting. A list of taxonomy categories, developed by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Global Tobacco Control via group discussion and informal framework and industry watchdog website review, was used to create initial codes. Category names included: mounting legal challenges, influencing government policymaking and implementation, manipulating markets, creating a positive public image, and challenging science. Emerging themes were captured using deductive and inductive coding. C.H. oversaw the collation, summarization, and reporting of findings. Quotes from each review that exemplified unique tactics were copy-and-pasted into Covidence. Authors involved in charting discussed emerging themes, theme names, categorization of subthemes within themes and consolidation of subthemes. C.H. ensured consistency and adequate detail by reviewing all themes, subthemes, and categorization of article quotes within these categories. Included reviews were described by industry and corporate practices. After codes were finalized, the number of codes used by each industry were tabulated in Excel. Similarities and differences in corporate practices across industries were identified, as were gaps in research across industries. Timeframe for conducting the review The initial taxonomy categorizations developed by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Global Tobacco Control were developed in 2018. The search strategy was developed, revised, and finalized between May and June 2021. Database searches were conducted in June 2021 and articles were immediately uploaded into Covidence. Titles and abstracts were screened in July 2021. Full text review was completed in August 2021. Data extraction occurred between August and September 2021. Analysis occurred between September and October 2021. Manuscript preparation occurred in October through November 2021. References 1 Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. 2018.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases (accessed 23 Sep 2020). 2 Kickbusch I, Allen L, Franz C. The commercial determinants of health. The Lancet Global Health 2016;4:e895–6. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30217-0 3 Mialon M. An overview of the commercial determinants of health. Globalization and Health. 2020;16. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00607-x 4 Newdick C. Health equality, social justice and the poverty of autonomy. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2017;12:411–33. doi:10.1017/S1744133117000093 5 Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB. What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tobacco Control 2013;22:e1–e1. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050098 6 Amul GGH, Tan GPP, van der Eijk Y. A Systematic Review of Tobacco Industry Tactics in Southeast Asia: Lessons for Other Low- And MiddleIncome Regions. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 2020;In press. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.97 7 McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction 2018;113:1571–84. doi:10.1111/add.14216 8 Ojeda E, Torres C, Carriedo Á, et al. The influence of the sugar-sweetened beverage industry on public policies in Mexico. International Journal of Public Health 2020;65:1037–44. doi:10.1007/s00038-020-01414-2 9 Lee JGL, Henriksen L, Rose SW, et al. A Systematic Review of Neighborhood Disparities in Point-of-Sale Tobacco Marketing. American Journal of Public Health 2015;105:e8–18. 10 Lempert LK, Glantz SA. Tobacco Industry Promotional Strategies Targeting American Indians/Alaska Natives and Exploiting Tribal Sovereignty. Nicotine &amp; Tobacco Research Published Online First: 12 March 2018. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty048 11 Morrison C, Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR. Socioeconomic Determinants of Exposure to Alcohol Outlets. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2015;76:439–46. doi:10.15288/jsad.2015.76.439 12 Barry AE, Bates AM, Olusanya O, et al. Alcohol Marketing on Twitter and Instagram: Evidence of Directly Advertising to Youth/Adolescents. Alcohol and Alcoholism 2016;51:487–92. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agv128 13 Sonntag D, Schneider S, Mdege N, et al. Beyond Food Promotion: A Systematic Review on the Influence of the Food Industry on Obesity-Related Dietary Behaviour among Children. Nutrients 2015;7:8565–76. doi:10.3390/nu7105414 14 Madureira Lima J, Galea S. Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms. Globalization and Health 2018;14:21. doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0336-y 15 Mialon M, Swinburn B, Sacks G. A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information. Obesity Reviews 2015;16:519–30. doi:10.1111/obr.12289 16 Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB. The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity. PLOS Medicine 2016;13:e1002125. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125 17 Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al. Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet 2013;381:670–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 18 Petticrew M, Katikireddi SV, Knai C, et al. ‘Nothing can be done until everything is done’: The use of complexity arguments by food, beverage, alcohol and gambling industries. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2017;:jech-2017-209710. doi:10.1136/jech-2017-209710 19 McKee M, Stuckler D. Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health. American Journal of Public Health. 2018;108. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304510 20 Berman ML. Lethal but legal: Corporations, consumption, and protecting public health. Journal of Legal Medicine 2014;35:601–8. doi:10.1080/01947648.2014.981492 21 Samet JM. The bottom line or public health: Tactics corporations use to influence health and health policy and what we can do to counter them. American Journal of Epidemiology 2012;175:971–2. doi:10.1093/aje/kws133 22 Maani N, McKee M, Petticrew M, et al. Corporate practices and the health of populations: A research and translational agenda. The Lancet Public Health 2020;5:e80–1. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30270-1