Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tobacco continues to kill millions of people around the world each year and its use is increasing in some countries, which makes the need for new, creative, and radical efforts to achieve the tobacco control endgame vitally important. One such effort is discussed in this PLOS Medicine Debate, where Simon Chapman presents his proposal for a \"smoker's license\" and Jeff Collin argues against. Chapman sets out a case for introducing a smart card license for smokers designed to limit access to tobacco products and encourage cessation. Key elements of the smoker's license include smokers setting daily limits, financial incentives for permanent license surrender, and a test of health risk knowledge for commencing smokers. Collin argues against the proposal, saying that it would shift focus away from the real vector of the epidemic--the tobacco industry--and that by focusing on individuals it would censure victims, increase stigmatization of smokers, and marginalize the poor.

Background: With multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance. Methods: Submissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents’ orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a ‘collaboration and partnership’ frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a ‘restricted engagement’ frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors. Results: Responses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement. Conclusion: Submissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

IntroductionThe WHO Foundation (WHOF) was established in 2020 with the stated aim of broadening the donor pool to the WHO. Academics and civil society actors raised concerns regarding the potential nature and source of contributions from commercial actors with a conflict of interest, particularly regarding the central role of commercial determinants of health in contemporary global health challenges. However, to date, little is known regarding the nature of donations to the WHOF. This analysis sought to examine the transparency and patterns of donations received by the WHOF based on the Foundation’s own disclosures.MethodsData was extracted from funding disclosures data made available by the WHOF on its transparency page. Donations were analysed descriptively by year, donor type, amount and earmarked programme. Sankey diagrams were constructed to illustrate the magnitude and flow of funds by donor type to the specific WHO programmes for which the donated funds were earmarked. Levels of transparency were assessed for each reporting period based on the A–E ‘Who Funds You’ transparency scale used by Open Democracy.ResultsSince its launch until the end of 2023, the Foundation disclosed total donation receipts of US$82 783 930 overall, of which US$39 757 326 (48%) was characterised as anonymous donations over US$100 000. The proportion of anonymous donations over US$100 000 increased year on year, alongside named donations from charitable foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, social media companies, medical device companies, banking/finance and pharmaceutical companies. The largest proportion was earmarked for ‘WHO Foundation Operational Support’. The WHOF was assessed a ‘B’ transparency rating for the first reporting period, falling to a ‘D’ (less than 50% of donations by value disclosed) in the 2022 and 2023 calendar years.ConclusionsThis analysis finds that current levels of donor transparency are low, potentially exposing the WHOF—and by extension the WHO—to risks of perceived reputational damage or undue influence. These risks are assumed for financial contributions that, to date, have been relatively modest and follow donor, rather than WHO, priorities.

Public health's terms of engagement with unhealthy commodity industries (alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed food and drinks) have become increasingly contested in policy and research. We sought to identify approaches that could attract consensus support within and across policy domains. Using snowball sampling, we undertook an online survey of 335 health researchers, advocates and policymakers, in 40 countries, assessing responses to stated principles, claims and recommendations for engaging with unhealthy commodity industries in relation to key policy and research initiatives. Most respondents identified a fundamental conflict between industry interests and public health objectives for all three industries, with agreement greatest in relation to tobacco and weakest for food. This pattern was replicated across diverse questions regarding potential forms of engagement, including in rejecting voluntarism and partnership approaches to health policy. While awareness of tobacco industry tactics to influence policy and research was higher than for alcohol and food, most respondents rejected the view that the influence of the latter was less significant for public health. Proposals that health and research organisations should divest their funds attracted less support with respect to food, while restricting publication of industry-funded research in academic journals was the issue that most divided opinion. Respondents reported most difficulty in answering questions about the food industry. The strong consensus around restricting interactions with the tobacco industry supports increased implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control's conflict of interest provisions. There is strong support for the extension of such practices to the alcohol industry, challenging current norms. More mixed responses indicate a need for greater clarity in defining the food industry, and for research analyzing links, similarities and differences across different types of unhealthy commodity producers. Partnership approaches to addressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.

Recent attempts by large tobacco companies to represent themselves as socially responsible have been widely dismissed as image management. Existing research supports such claims by pointing to the failings and misleading nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. However, few studies have focused in depth on what tobacco companies hoped to achieve through CSR or reflected on the extent to which these ambitions have been realised. Iterative searching relating to CSR strategies was undertaken of internal British American Tobacco (BAT) documents, released through litigation in the US. Relevant documents (764) were indexed and qualitatively analysed. In the past decade, BAT has actively developed a wide-ranging CSR programme. Company documents indicate that one of the key aims of this programme was to help the company secure access to policymakers and, thereby, increase the company's chances of influencing policy decisions. Taking the UK as a case study, this paper demonstrates the way in which CSR can be used to renew and maintain dialogue with policymakers, even in ostensibly unreceptive political contexts. In practice, the impact of this political use of CSR is likely to be context specific; depending on factors such as policy élites' understanding of the credibility of companies as a reliable source of information. The findings suggest that tobacco company CSR strategies can enable access to and dialogue with policymakers and provide opportunities for issue definition. CSR should therefore be seen as a form of corporate political activity. This underlines the need for broad implementation of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Measures are needed to ensure transparency of interactions between all parts of government and the tobacco industry and for policy makers to be made more aware of what companies hope to achieve through CSR.

In successfully negotiating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the World Health Organization (WHO) has led a significant innovation in global health governance, helping to transform international tobacco control. This article provides the first comprehensive review of the diverse campaign initiated by transnational tobacco corporations (TTCs) to try to undermine the proposed convention. The article is primarily based on an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents made public through litigation, triangulated with data from official documentation relating to the FCTC process and websites of relevant organisations. It is also informed by a comprehensive review of previous studies concerning tobacco industry efforts to influence the FCTC. The findings demonstrate that the industry's strategic response to the proposed WHO convention was two-fold. First, arguments and frames were developed to challenge the FCTC, including: claiming there would be damaging economic consequences; depicting tobacco control as an agenda promoted by high-income countries; alleging the treaty conflicted with trade agreements, \"good governance,\" and national sovereignty; questioning WHO's mandate; claiming the FCTC would set a precedent for issues beyond tobacco; and presenting corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an alternative. Second, multiple tactics were employed to promote and increase the impact of these arguments, including: directly targeting FCTC delegations and relevant political actors, enlisting diverse allies (e.g., mass media outlets and scientists), and using stakeholder consultation to delay decisions and secure industry participation. TTCs' efforts to undermine the FCTC were comprehensive, demonstrating the global application of tactics that TTCs have previously been found to have employed nationally and further included arguments against the FCTC as a key initiative in global health governance. Awareness of these strategies can help guard against industry efforts to disrupt the implementation of the FCTC and support the development of future, comparable initiatives in global health.

Background Public health scholarship has uncovered a wide range of strategies used by industry actors to promote their products and influence government regulation. Less is known about the strategies used by non-government organisations to attempt to influence commercial practices. This narrative review applies a political science typology to identify a suite of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ strategies used by NGOs to attempt to influence the commercial determinants of health. Methods We conducted a systematic search in Web of Science, ProQuest and Scopus. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they comprised an empirical study, explicitly sought to examine ‘NGOs’, were in English, and identified at least one NGO strategy aimed at commercial and/or government policy and practice. Results One hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight industry sectors were identified: extractive, tobacco, food, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, textiles and asbestos, and a small number of general studies. We identified 18 types of NGO strategies, categorised according to the target (i.e. commercial actor or government actor) and type of interaction with the target (i.e. inside or outside). Of these, five NGO ‘inside’ strategies targeted commercial actors directly: 1) participation in partnerships and multistakeholder initiatives; 2) private meetings and roundtables; 3) engaging with company AGMs and shareholders; 4) collaborations other than partnerships; and 5) litigation. ‘Outside’ strategies targeting commercial actors through the mobilisation of public opinion included 1) monitoring and reporting; 2) protests at industry sites; 3) boycotts; 4) directly engaging the public; and 5) creative use of alternative spaces. Four NGO ‘inside’ strategies directly targeting government actors included: 1) lobbying; 2) drafting legislation, policies and standards; 3) providing technical support and training; and 4) litigation. NGO ‘outside’ strategies targeting government included 1) protests and public campaigns; 2) monitoring and reporting; 3) forum shifting; and 4) proposing and initiating alternative solutions. We identified three types of NGO impact: substantive, procedural, and normative. Conclusion The analysis presents a matrix of NGO strategies used to target commercial and government actors across a range of industry sectors. This framework can be used to guide examination of which NGO strategies are effective and appropriate, and which conditions enable NGO influence.

ObjectivesThere is limited research focused explicitly on understanding how commercial actors use different forms of power to influence policy decision making in Thailand. This study aimed to identify how the food industry has used structural, instrumental and discursive power to influence policy on restricting food marketing in Thailand.Study designQualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviewsSettingsThailand.ParticipantsThe interviews were conducted with 20 participants (of a total of 29 invited actors) from government, civil society, technical experts, international organisation and the food and advertising industry. Interview data were identified in the transcripts and analysed using abductive methods.ResultsNon-commercial actors perceived the commercial actors’ structural power (its economic influence and structurally privileged position) as central to understanding the government having not implemented policy to restrict food marketing. The commercial actors’ instrumental power was observed through sponsorship, campaign and lobbying activities. Discursive power was used by the industry to shift responsibility away from the food companies and onto their customers, by focusing their messaging on freedom of consumer choice and consumer health literacy.ConclusionsThis study examined different types of power that commercial actors were perceived to use to influence policy to restrict food marketing in Thailand. The study showed arguments and institutional processes used to enhance commercial actors’ ability to shape the policy decision for nutrition, public opinion and the broader regulatory environment. The findings help governments and other stakeholders to anticipate industry efforts to counter policy. The findings also suggest the need for governance structures that counter industry power, including comprehensive monitoring and enforcement in policy implementation.

ObjectivesMost non-communicable diseases are preventable and largely driven by the consumption of harmful products, such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and ultra-processed food and drink products, collectively termed unhealthy commodities. This paper explores the links between unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs), analyses the extent of alignment across their corporate political strategies, and proposes a cohesive systems approach to research across UCIs.MethodsWe held an expert consultation on analysing the involvement of UCIs in public health policy, conducted an analysis of business links across UCIs, and employed taxonomies of corporate political activity to collate, compare and illustrate strategies employed by the alcohol, ultra-processed food and drink products, tobacco and gambling industries.ResultsThere are clear commonalities across UCIs’ strategies in shaping evidence, employing narratives and framing techniques, constituency building and policy substitution. There is also consistent evidence of business links between UCIs, as well as complex relationships with government agencies, often allowing UCIs to engage in policy-making forums. This knowledge indicates that the role of all UCIs in public health policy would benefit from a common approach to analysis. This enables the development of a theoretical framework for understanding how UCIs influence the policy process. It highlights the need for a deeper and broader understanding of conflicts of interests and how to avoid them; and a broader conception of what constitutes strong evidence generated by a wider range of research types.ConclusionUCIs employ shared strategies to shape public health policy, protecting business interests, and thereby contributing to the perpetuation of non-communicable diseases. A cohesive systems approach to research across UCIs is required to deepen shared understanding of this complex and interconnected area and also to inform a more effective and coherent response.

The roles of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) in regulating harmful commodity industries (HCIs) are understudied. The aim of this paper is to identify the NGOs and the roles that they play in the governance of the ultra‐processed food and alcohol industries in Australia. We undertook an exploratory descriptive analysis of NGOs identified from an online search based on the typology we developed of type, issue area and governance function. A total of 134 relevant Australian NGOs were identified: 38 work on food issues, 61 with alcohol issues and 35 are active in both. In the food domain, 90% of NGOs engage in agenda setting, 88% in capacity building, 15% in implementation and 12% in monitoring. In the alcohol domain, 92% of NGOs are active in agenda setting, 72% in capacity building, 35% in implementation and 8% in monitoring. Australian NGOs are active actors in the food and alcohol governance system. There are many opportunities for NGOs to regulate HCI practices, building on their relative strengths in agenda setting and capacity building, and expanding their activities in monitoring and implementation. A more detailed examination is needed of strategies that can be used by NGOs to be effective regulators in the governance system.