Abstract
Introduction The concept of the commercial determinants of health (CDH) is used to study the actions (and associated structures) of commercial entities that influence population health and health equity. The aim of this study was to develop a typology that describes the diverse set of activities through which corporations influence population health and health equity across industries.
Methods We conducted a scoping review of articles using CDH terms (n=116) that discuss corporate activities that can influence population health and health equity across 16 industries. We used the qualitative constant comparison method to build a typology called the Corporate Influences on Population Health (HEALTH-CORP) typology.
Results The HEALTH-CORP typology identifies 70 corporate activities that can influence health across industries and categorizes them into seven domains of corporate influence (e.g., political practices, employment practices). We present a model that situates these domains based on their proximity to health outcomes and identify five population groups (e.g., workers, local communities) to consider when evaluating corporate health impacts.
Discussion The HEALTH-CORP typology facilitates an understanding of the diverse set of corporate activities that can influence population health and the population groups affected by these activities. We discuss the utility of these contributions in terms of identifying interventions to address the CDH and advancing efforts to measure and monitor the CDH. We also leverage our findings to identify key gaps in CDH literature and suggest avenues for future research.
Introduction
For centuries, commercial actors and the structures that govern them have shaped the health of various populations in profound ways [1]. Growing attention to this influence recognizes the increasing economic, political, and legal power wielded by corporations, especially those that operate transnationally. In the past two decades, scholars have studied this issue through the lens of the ‘commercial determinants of health’ (CDH). In a recent Lancet-commissioned series on the topic, the CDH were defined as “the systems, practices, and pathways through which commercial actors drive health and equity” [2].
Gilmore and colleagues [2] provide us with a detailed summary of the CDH literature to-date and proposed a conceptual model for understanding how the CDH influence population health outcomes. Drawing on existing models of the political and social determinants of health (SDH), their model highlights the ways that corporate practices (e.g., political practices, financial practices) exert influence on the political and economic system, which have downstream impacts on SDH such as housing, labour, as well as on the natural environment. Gilmore and colleagues highlight how the maldistribution of power between the private and public sector creates current “pathological” economic and political systems that favour the interests of commercial entities, often at the expense of health and equity [2].
We conducted a scoping review and qualitative synthesis of 116 CDH articles discussing corporate activities with the potential to influence population health and health equity. Leveraging the findings from this process, we offer three distinct contributions that add to existing literature [2–8]. First, we develop a typology (called the Corporate Influences on Health (HEALTH-CORP) typology) that identifies 70 specific corporate activities with the potential to influence human health across industries and categorizes these activities into seven domains of corporate influence (e.g., political practices, products and services). Second, we situate the domains based on their proximity to health outcomes (i.e., distal to proximal) and propose five population groups to consider when evaluating the health impact of corporate practices. Our third contribution is to use our findings to illuminate current gaps in CDH research.
In the following sections, we report our review methods and describe how we used the literature to build the HEALTH-CORP typology. We summarize the activities we identified as relevant to the seven domains of influence and five population groups. We conclude by discussing the utility of these contributions and identifying avenues for future CDH research.
Methods
We used scoping review methodology to find relevant literature and qualitative synthesis to build the typology. Scoping review methodology is preferred when examining emerging fields of research and consolidating key factors related to a particular concept [9]. Likewise, qualitative synthesis is useful for systematically interpreting research to identify and represent its meaning [10]. We report our methods and findings in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [11]. No study protocol was registered.
Search strategy
We consulted prior work by de Lacy-Vawdon and Livingstone [12] to build our search. We expanded the scope of prior searches for CDH terms ((commercial OR corporate) AND determinant* AND (health OR disease*)), to include related terms such as “corporate political activity” and “morbidity” (Additional File 1, Appendix 1). At the full-text screening stage, we then excluded articles that did not specifically mention CDH terms (i.e., “commercial determinants”, “corporate determinant(s)”). The purpose was to identify as many related articles as possible, including those that did not use CDH terms in their title, abstract, or keywords, but nevertheless used CDH terms in the full text. We searched Scopus, OVID Medline, Ovid Embase, and Ovid Global Health with no date restrictions on Jan 4, 2022 and again on Sept 13, 2022.
Eligibility criteria
Eligible articles described activities (i.e., decisions, strategies, or other actions) that corporations or those acting on behalf of corporations engage in that have been demonstrated to or have the potential to influence population health and/or health equity. This criterion was applied broadly to identify as many relevant activities as possible; the potential to influence population health and/or health equity could have been investigated explicitly within the respective study, supported by previous research (for e.g., changes to income are known to influence health), or reasonably be expected to influence population health (e.g., delayed implementation of evidence-based health policy due to corporate influence). Moreover, the expected impact on health could be direct (e.g., occupational injury), indirect (e.g., decreased health protections due to corporate lobbying), health-promoting (e.g., provision of income), or health-adverse (e.g., harmful product), or some combination of these categories.
Articles were excluded if the full text was not available in English and if the title, abstract, keywords, or full text did not contain CDH terms (excluding the reference list). Full-length books were also excluded.
Screening
Following manual and software-assisted (via Mendeley [13] reference management software) de-duplication, the first author (R.B.) screened the titles and abstracts in Rayyan [14], a web service for organizing reviews. We did not employ double, independent screening for verification purposes. Full texts were retrieved for eligible records. Then, EndNote’s [15] ‘Smart Group’ feature was used to screen for articles that use CDH terms.
Data analysis
Using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo 12 [16], the first author (R.B) employed the constant comparative method to inductively code the data with the goal of identifying relevant corporate activities and arranging them into overarching descriptive domains [17,18].
Specifically, examples of corporate activities discussed in the included texts (e.g., corporate involvement in nutrition education in schools [19]) were coded and compared to other relevant examples (e.g., corporate provision of resources on breastfeeding for mothers [20]), to identify overarching activities (e.g., corporate involvement in health education directed at the public). These activities were then grouped into larger descriptive categories (e.g., preference and perception shaping practices), which we call ‘domains of corporate influence’. In the final typology, specific activities were included if they had been described in a general sense in the included literature or discussed in relation to two or more industries.
Drawing on the findings of this analysis, other CDH work [2,3,6,7], and the work of relevant civil society organizations [21,22], the first author (R.B.) then developed a model to describe the interdependencies between domains and their proximity to health outcomes in consultation with the third author (N.F.). This included identifying five population groups whose health is affected by corporate activities (i.e., consumers, workers, disadvantaged groups, vulnerable groups, and local communities).
Critical appraisal
Consistent with scoping review methodology [23], a formal quality assessment of articles was not performed.
Results
Article Screening
7910 records were identified during the initial search, 4924 of which remained after de-duplication. Following title and abstract screening, 430 full texts were sought and 412 were found. 248 articles were excluded based on screening for use of CDH terms. Of the remaining 164 articles, 74 were included. Another 42 articles were included when the search was conducted a second time for a total of 116 included articles (Figure 1).
Characteristics of Included Articles
Almost half of the articles included were conceptual (50 articles; 43%) and a substantial proportion employed qualitative methods (37; 32%). Fifty eight percent (67 articles) focused on the food and beverage, tobacco, and alcohol industries, with less research dedicated to studying other industries (e.g., social media, gambling, fossil fuels). Of the 58 included articles that reported a regional focus, 72% (42 articles) studied corporate activities in high-income countries (HICs), such as United States, United Kingdom, or Australia. Detailed descriptions of the characteristics of the included literature are reported in our previous work [24]. Individual article characteristics are provided in Additional File 1, Appendix 2.
Corporate Influences on Population Health (HEALTH-CORP)
We identified seven domains of corporate influence, which are: 1) political practices, 2) preference and perception shaping practices, 3) corporate social responsibility practices, 4) economic practices, 5) products & services, 6) employment practices, and 7) environmental practices (Table 1).
In Figure 2, we provide a graphical depiction of the domains. We showed that several domains overlap and are interactive (portrayed by positioning the domains in boxes without inter-domain boundaries). For example, some activities (e.g., ‘engage in efforts to influence the public’s perception of health policies’) contain elements of both preference and perception shaping practices and political strategies (overlapping). Other activities (e.g., obscuring conflicts of interest in research) could strengthen activities in other domains (e.g., misrepresenting evidence in policy submissions) (interactive).
Political practices, preference & perception shaping practices, and economic practices are positioned as distal domains (i.e., their impact on population health is indirect). Employment practices, products and services, and environmental practices are positioned as proximal domains (i.e., their impact on population health is direct). A double-headed arrow between the proximal and distal domains suggest that the distal domains enable the proximal domains and the proximal domains reinforce the distal domains. That is, by shaping the political, normative, epistemic, and economic environment in favourable ways, corporations are able to influence the conditions in which they operate (e.g., the environmental impacts for which they are held accountable) [2]. In turn, the proximal domains can simultaneously influence the extent to which commercial entities can engage in the distal domains. For example, transnational companies can leverage their employment of large numbers of people (employment practices) to impose pressure on political and judicial processes (political practices), as was the case with the SNC-Lavalin scandal in Canada in 2019 [25]. Likewise, pharmaceutical companies were able to leverage their production of necessary products to advocate for reduced liability for product-related harms in the United States [26].
Finally, based on our review of the literature and other relevant sources [21,22], we identified five broad population groups that have been consistently studied to assess the impact of corporate activities on population health. These are consumers, workers, disadvantaged groups, vulnerable groups, and local communities located near a production or processing facility (Table 2). These five overlapping groups and the activities that influence their health are described in the section ‘Health Impact on Populations’.
In the next section, we describe the activities that comprise each domain and report the ways these activities were discussed in the included literature. The number of references pertaining to a specific activity should not be interpreted as an indication of the strength of associated evidence, but rather the number of instances the respective activity was discussed in the included articles. Our descriptions of the activities in the political and preference and perception shaping practices domains are brief as these practices have been discussed in detail elsewhere [3,4,6,7]. The HEALTH-CORP typology is presented in Table 2 (see end of document) and an expanded version with additional details is provided in Additional File 1, Appendix 3.
Distal Domains of Corporate Influence
Political Practices
Corporate involvement in the development and implementation of health policy was a significant focus of many of the included articles and a wide range of corporate strategies were discussed. Corporations were reported to engage in efforts to secure a favourable policy environment, for instance, by contributing to political parties [12,18,20,31–44] and developing relationships with public health institutions [20,27,32,37,45–51]. For example, Maani and colleagues [46] used Freedom of Information Act Requests to access emails between the Coca Cola Company and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They demonstrated that Coca Cola successfully built a relationship with a senior CDC official, which they leveraged in an attempt to avoid restrictions on sugar-sweetened beverages supported by the World Health Organization.
Corporate strategies to stop, delay, or weaken proposed health policies were also frequently discussed. For example, corporations were reported to push for self-regulation schemes [12,18,20,27,31,32,39,49,51–68] and to threaten litigation and/or use existing trade treaties to challenge proposed health legislation [19,67,69–74]. They were reported to engage in a wide breadth of argumentative strategies to challenge proposed health policies. For example, corporations suggested that policies were redundant, conflicting, or misaligned with other regulations or international norms [45,49,52–54,69,75]. Arguments about the impacts of the policy on the economy, employment, equity, and poverty were also common [19,20,31,52–55,63,65,67,71,74,76–80], and economic arguments were considered to be particularly persuasive in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) [19,67,74]. Many articles also discussed the use of front groups as a way to distance the corporation from its unsavoury activities (e.g., lobbying against health policies) [18,19,32,42,44,48,52,59,63,72,74,81–83].
Preference & Perception Shaping Practices
The ways in which corporations shape preferences for products and influence perceptions about their health-related risks was another major topic of the included articles. Corporations were accused of promoting excessive consumption of harmful products, for example, by engaging in intensive and highly-resourced marketing campaigns that normalize their consumption (e.g., portraying alcohol as part of a normal everyday routine [84]) [12,18,36,42,47,51,63,65,72–74,84–99]. They were reported to influence the public debate about product related-risks by reframing and creating uncertainty about the causes of health issues (e.g., focusing on genetic causes of cancer as opposed to alcohol consumption [100]) [18,20,27,28,31,32,34,36,37,40–42,44,46,48,50–52,56–58,64,65,75,76,79,81,101–104] and acquiring or funding media companies, making it more difficult for public health messages to be heard [20,45,48,49,65,72]. Though commercial entities promoted education as the solution to managing health-related risks [20,45,51,58,66,68,74,80], they were also accused of attempting to shape the public’s understanding of health issues by providing educational resources that promoted their products and/or downplayed the associated health risks (e.g., alcohol [61,62]) [19,20,36,51,63,65,68,80,84,100].
Similarly, commercial actors were accused of promoting products to health professionals by, for example, delivering educational initiatives to health professionals (e.g., the breast-milk substitute (BMS) industry’s funding of medical student retreats [42]) [18–20,49,51,65,80] and influencing the development of clinical standards (e.g., BMS industry’s funding of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis of cows-milk protein allergy [91]) [48,78,91,97,105]. Corporations were also reported to influence the academic debate and the production of science by, for example, by funding universities, think tanks, and scientific conferences, providing scientific awards, developing industry research institutes and suppressing research that is not aligned with their interests (e.g., failing to publish research on health harms of products) [19,20,32,42,46,48,49,51,64,66–68,72,75,80].
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices
CSR initiatives mentioned in the literature include corporate involvement in health promotion programs and contributions to health charities and causes (e.g., tobacco industry’s funding of HIV initiatives [44]; alcohol industry’s involvement in road safety [37]) [18,19,27,37,39,42,44,51,67,72,91,97,106], some of which had limited evidence of effectiveness [18,27,39,44,72]. Others described CSR initiatives that have implications for health (e.g., diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts) [19,27,39,44,67,68]. Corporations were sometimes reported to exploit existing social movements (e.g., women’s rights [61]) to sell products [27,50,61] or engage in product reformulation (e.g., ‘light’ cigarettes [48]) to suggest that the company is taking action on product-related harms [12,18,36,51,68,92].
Overall, CSR was perceived critically and was seen as being closely related to political practices and preference and perception shaping practices. That is, CSR efforts were seen as attempts to distract from corporate harms [12,18,27,44,48,75,107], shift blame [68,75], enhance brand image and credibility [19,36,44,67,84], influence policymaking [19,37,44,48,68,71], and/or pre-emptively address threats to business practices [55]. In some cases, these strategic uses of CSR were described by corporations in leaked company documents [48]. Millar [62] suggested that ‘good’ corporations engage in CSR efforts genuinely.
Economic Practices
Externalization of health harms, for example, through tax avoidance [1,36,38,40,41,43,48,62,65,72,86,107–109], was another major topic of the included articles. In this way, corporations were reported to impose health harms onto populations (e.g., chronic disease) without paying for the full cost of these harms. Large monopolies were seen as harmful because they concentrate economic power in one or a few actors, leading to more powerful lobbying efforts [43]. Mendly-Zambo, Raphael, & Taman [106] also discussed the price fixing tactics of Walmart Canada and its contributions to food insecurity. Millar [62] described how ‘good’ corporations pay their fair share of taxes and contribute to economic growth.
Proximal Domain of Corporate Influence
Products and Services
Several products (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, and gambling machines) were widely recognized as promoting harm. Many authors discussing products referred to their wide availability and accessibility [36,74,88,98,110,111]. For example, the ubiquity of fast-food outlets and the provision of free BMS in clinics was seen as increasing consumption of these products [36,74,88,110,111]. The features of products were also discussed, such as the hyper-palatable nature of ultra-processed foods [93] and the hyper-engagement features of social media (e.g., endless scroll) [64], which were seen as promoting behaviour some authors described as addictive. Liber [112] discussed some health-promoting products (e.g., vaccines) and suggested that regulation focus on expanding these markets while contracting the markets for health-harming products (e.g., alcohol).
Employment Practices
Employment practices were not discussed in depth in the included articles. Most articles that discussed employment did so in passing, with reference to health harming practices such as unsafe working conditions, inadequate pay, and limited access to benefits (e.g., parental leave, medical care) [1,12,18,40,41,43,62,65,79,106,113]. Loewenson [113] provided the deepest discussion of employment by describing the global trend towards precarious labour and associated health effects such as social isolation, high blood pressure, and mental ill-health.
Mendly-Zambo, Raphael, and Taman [106] described how Walmart Canada’s employment practices (e.g., low wages, anti-union activities) contributed to food insecurity in Canada. In contrast, Millar [62] suggested that ‘good’ businesses create jobs that can have a beneficial effect on human health and described health-promoting activities such as adequate workplace mental health policies.
Environmental Practices
Health concerns related to environmental practices were not also not a significant topic of the included articles. Activities that were mentioned include chemical and pesticide use, air and water pollution, land clearing/deforestation, ecosystem disruption, consumption of energy and water, production of waste, contributions to greenhouse gases, and contributions to biodiversity loss [1,12,43,62,65,79]. Kadandale, Marten, and Smith [79] described how slash- and-burn land clearing practices used by the palm oil industry created episodes of harmful haze in South-East Asia, which led to thousands of premature deaths and increases in the rates of respiratory, eye, and skin diseases. Montiel [114] described the health harms of deforestation by pointing to reports that land clearing in Indonesia by the palm oil and sugar industries led to the emergence of the Nipah virus through zoonosis (transfer of a virus from animals to humans).
Health Impact on Populations
Guided by the literature, we describe the domains which are relevant to each of the five identified population groups (Table 3). We also describe specific activities relevant to each group that were discussed within the included literature.
Consumers
Consumers, by their nature, are influenced by the properties of consumer goods (products and services). Political and preference and perception shaping practices influence consumers’ health indirectly by creating and shaping the markets for these goods. For example, aggressive marketing can increase the demand for harmful products (e.g., ultra-processed foods) while lobbying and political financing may limit associated protections (e.g., nutrition labelling [49]).
Workers
The activities influencing the health of workers are, unsurprisingly, those identified in the employment practices domain. These activities shape the opportunities the worker has to obtain optimal health (e.g., access to medical benefits) and their exposure to harmful or salutogenic factors (e.g., pesticides, positive work environments) [118]. Some political practices (e.g., threatening to shift operations to a country with weaker labour standards) may also impact workers (i.e., through placing downward pressure on labour regulations).
Disadvantaged Groups
Disadvantaged groups are more likely to be employed in precarious and unsafe jobs [119] and therefore are likely to be strongly affected by employment practices. These groups may also experience the greatest burden from economic practices such as unfair tax practices that reduce funds for social programs. Environmental practices and preference and perception shaping practices are also relevant to these groups [120,121].
Specific activities described in the literature include disproportionate marketing of unhealthy commodities (e.g., alcohol) to disadvantaged populations [40,43,50,60,72,86,103,110,121–123] and efforts to make unhealthy commodities appealing to women [61,95,98]. Millar described increasing domestic income inequities because of large corporate profits which are distributed amongst the elite, who also lobby for reduced taxation [62]. Some private sectors (e.g., the for-profit prison industry, tobacco industry) were accused of placing undue burdens on certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, Indigenous populations) [1,50,107,124–126]. Corporations were reported to push for privatization, which was seen as widening inequities [62,127]. In some cases, initiatives ostensibly undertaken to improve equity (i.e., efforts to diversify cannabis industry employment) were seen as self-serving attempts to advance industry interests (e.g., increase consumption) [27].
Some articles also described corporate influences on global inequities, including the ‘downward pressure’ on working conditions via corporations’ use of low-wage havens [40,41,113,114], exploitation of the weaker regulatory structures of LMICs, the extraction of wealth from LMICs to HICs [108,114], and the identification of LMICs as ‘emerging markets’ by unhealthy commodity producers (e.g., tobacco) to replace declines in consumption in HICs [36,40,43,72,128].
Vulnerable Groups
The literature described vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant persons being affected by products and associated marketing and educational techniques, as well as the political practices that enable these marketing techniques. Specifically, the included literature discussed food and beverage industry marketing directed towards children and involvement of the industry in schools and other child-centered programming (e.g., distribution of branded school supplies, development of nutrition educational programmes for children) [12,19,43,123]. Pregnant persons and mothers were mostly discussed in the context of the BMS industry and relevant activities included marketing, industry sponsored educational resources, industry interactions with health care professionals, and donations of BMS during emergencies (i.e., ‘crisis marketing’) [18,20,42,47,73,74,91,129]. Other vulnerable groups (e.g., the elderly or people with disabilities) were not frequently discussed.
Local Communities
The health outcomes of local communities are likely be most influenced by environmental and employment practices, especially those occurring in the supply chain, which are enabled by political practices. In the included literature, there was little discussion of specific activities that may influence these communities. One activity that was discussed was the dislocation of local communities [65,113] through, for example, the activities of the extractive industry [113]. This dislocation was reported to lead to social exclusion, poor access to infrastructure, and dependency on mining activities [113].
Discussion
In this article, we reported on the development of the cross-industry HEALTH-CORP typology, which describes 70 health-relevant corporate activities that are categorized across seven domains of corporate influence. We presented a graphical model that situates these domains in relation to their proximity to health outcomes and identified five population groups whose health is influenced by corporate activities.
These contributions draw from and directly supplement previous work [2–8]. Prior typologies of corporate activities tend to be more narrowly focused on either one particular industry or group of industries [3–5,8,130] and/or a specific type of corporate practice (e.g., political practices) [4,28,131]. To the best of our knowledge, the HEALTH-CORP typology is the most comprehensive typology of health-relevant corporate activities to-date. This novel typology covers a diverse range of corporate activities that were identified based on literature pertaining to 16 different industries. The seven domains we identified are well-aligned with practices proposed by others [2,6,8], indicating agreement on the key corporate practices that require our attention within efforts to mitigate the CDH. The 70 activities identified in the HEALTH-CORP typology add to this work by more comprehensively identifying the array of different activities through which these practices are manifested.
The identification of these activities will support future efforts to measure and monitor corporate activities, a key priority for the CDH field [3,4,8]. Ongoing work by our team includes using the HEALTH-CORP typology to guide the development of a food and beverage (F&B) industry-specific rubric that can be later transformed into an index to measure, monitor, and score individual F&B companies on the diverse set of activities through which they exert influences on health. These efforts, alongside other relevant efforts [21,132,133], will be critical to our ability to track changes in corporate activities over time and to quantitatively assess the impact of corporate activities on specific health outcomes, another priority for the CDH field [24].
The HEALTH-CORP typology may also assist public health professionals, socially minded investors, and civil society in identifying harmful corporate activities that can be targeted for intervention. To achieve meaningful wide-scale change on the CDH, we suggest prioritizing interventions that address distal CDH activities such as the deep integration of corporations into political, academic, and professional structures. For example, implementing regulations that allow industry to fund research but blinding them to the investigators conducting the work [134] may be one measure that could be used to address the power that corporations hold over the production and dissemination of science. By effectively addressing the distal CDH, we may see corollary ‘run-off’ benefits to proximal domains such as products & services (e.g., improved product safety).
Our identification of five population groups whose health is affected by corporate activities may also assist with identifying interventions that can be used to protect the health of specific priority population groups. For example, introducing limits on the number of advertisements for unhealthy commodities on Spanish-language television may help prevent disproportionate marketing of unhealthy goods to Hispanic individuals living in the United States [121]. As suggested by Baum and colleagues [8], the priority placed on different population groups (e.g., local communities versus consumers) and the associated interventions are likely to differ based on the specific characteristics of the particular country or region of interest [8].
Finally, our review and synthesis of a substantial number of CDH articles allowed us to identify key research gaps in the CDH literature. First, the included literature reported extensively on political and preference and perception shaping practices, providing countless examples of how these practices have been manifested in different scenarios. However, some of the proximal domains (i.e., employment practices, environmental practices) were explored only superficially. This gap may be limiting our ability to understand the complex interactions between different types of corporate practices and may also limit our ability to determine which corporate activities are most health-harming and therefore should be prioritized for intervention.
Fortunately, there are robust fields of existing public health research (e.g., environmental health, occupational health) that we can draw on to better understand these activities. Conducting collaborative work with occupational health, environmental health, and CDH scholars may lend fresh insights into these practices, their economic and political drivers, and the associated solutions.
Another gap is the limited investigation of the ways in which commercial entities influence the health of disadvantaged groups, vulnerable groups, and local communities. This may, in part, reflect the relative lack of CDH research on LMICs compared to HICs [reference to related manuscript]. Understanding the impact of corporate practices on these communities will be paramount to addressing domestic and global health inequities. Efforts to advance our understanding of these activities may be facilitated by the Corporate Health Impact Assessment tool developed by Baum and colleagues [8], which can be used to conduct in-depth investigations of corporate practices within particular regions of interest.
Researchers can also expand our understanding of the role of specific actors by conducting community-based participatory research [135] with communities of interest to better understand the corporate activities that most affect them and determine how individuals in these communities weigh positive impacts of corporate involvement in their community (e.g., employment) against negative impacts (e.g., water pollution).
Limitations
We were able to review and synthesize 116 articles on the CDH across 16 industries to develop a fairly comprehensive typology of corporate activities that can influence health. We believe the HEALTH-CORP typology will be useful for advancing scholarship and practice on the CDH. However, the typology nor our associated model can completely explain the complex system through which commercial entities influence health. Moreover, other domains of corporate influence, such as corporate activities that exert influence over patterns of conflict and migration, may continue to emerge as CDH research advances.
We have focused on corporate actions in this article, rather than the systems and structures (e.g., neoliberalism) that drive these actions, or the influence of other actors (e.g., government) in co-creating these actions (e.g., privatization of services). The benefits of this approach are that actions are observable and observing them may lend insight into the associated structures. We included all activities that could be reasonably linked to human health; however, it was beyond the scope of this review to assess the strength of evidence of the relationship of each activity to health.
Moreover, most of the included literature described corporate practices from a negative perspective that seemed to suggest that corporate actions are driven by profit-seeking and sometimes a willful neglect of the associated harms to health. In many cases (e.g., tobacco industry’s attempts to sow doubt about the health harms of cigarettes), this perception may be accurate whereas in other cases (e.g., aggressive marketing) corporations may be driven by other factors inherent to our economic system (e.g., fiduciary duty to maximize profits and revenues). The proposed HEALTH-CORP model and typology (and CDH literature in general) may benefit from deeper consideration of the benefits some large companies provide to society that the current economic system facilitates (e.g., inexpensive goods manufactured efficiently at large-scales).
Our eligibility criteria did not include grey and non-English literature which may have improved the comprehensiveness of the HEALTH-CORP typology. Importantly, we also limited our review to articles that directly engaged with CDH terms, thereby excluding research that may describe health-relevant corporate practices without engaging with CDH concepts. We made this decision for feasibility purposes and because this strategy allowed us to identify key gaps in CDH literature, a contribution of this review.
Conclusions
Scholarship on the CDH has documented the wide-ranging influence that corporate activities can have on population health. In this article, we make three contributions to the CDH literature. First, we developed the HEALTH-CORP typology, which describes 70 corporate activities that can influence population health across industries and categorizes these activities into seven domains of corporate influence. Second, we situate the domains based on their proximity to health outcomes and identify five population groups to consider when evaluating the health impact of corporate practices. Finally, we leverage our findings to reveal key gaps in CDH literature and recommend future avenues for CDH research. We believe these contributions will be useful for advancing public health research and practice related to the CDH.
Data Availability
The data for this study are published academic articles which are available from the respective publishers (see Supplementary Material, Appendix 2 for the characteristics of included articles). In addition, we uploaded the following files to Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/TG9S7) to support data availability: 1) a .csv file containing a list of the articles that underwent title and abstract screening in our study and the respective screening decisions that were assigned, and 2) .ris files containing the citations to the respective articles and the assigned screening decisions, which can be uploaded into a reference manager. Interested parties can contact the corresponding author for additional information.
Declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
The data for this study are published academic articles which are available from the respective publishers (see Additional File 1, Appendix 2 for the characteristics of included articles). In addition, we uploaded the following files to Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/TG9S7) to support data availability: 1) a .csv file containing a list of the articles that underwent title and abstract screening in our study and the respective screening decisions that were assigned, and 2) .ris files containing the citations to the respective articles and the assigned screening decisions, which can be uploaded into a reference manager. Interested parties can contact the corresponding author for additional information.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
Raquel Burgess was supported by a Doctoral Foreign Study Award provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research at the time this research was conducted. Funding was provided by the Yale School of Public Health and the Yale Graduate Student Assembly to present this work at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in 2022.
Authors’ contributions
Burgess conceptualized the study, completed the search and review process, synthesized the findings, and led the writing of the manuscript. K. Nyhan guided the review methodology and search strategy and contributed to the conceptualization of the study and revision of the manuscript. N. Freudenberg contributed to the intellectual content and revision of the manuscript and the development and revision of the typology and model. Y. Ransome supervised the research and contributed to the conceptualization of the study and revision of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the CDH experts who provided input on the HEALTH-CORP typology in the context of a related project. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Trace Kershaw, Dr. Ijeoma Opara, and Dr. Rafael Perez-Escamilla for the useful feedback they provided related to this review.
List of abbreviations
- CDH
- Commercial determinants of health SDH: Social determinants of health
- HEALTH-CORP
- Corporate Influences on Population Health PRISMA-ScR: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews
- CSR
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- CDC
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HICs: High-income countries
- LMICs
- Low- and middle-income countries F&B: Food and beverage
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.
- 34.↵
- 35.
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.
- 86.↵
- 87.
- 88.↵
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.
- 95.↵
- 96.
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
- 102.
- 103.↵
- 104.↵
- 105.↵
- 106.↵
- 107.↵
- 108.↵
- 109.↵
- 110.↵
- 111.↵
- 112.↵
- 113.↵
- 114.↵
- 115.
- 116.
- 117.
- 118.↵
- 119.↵
- 120.↵
- 121.↵
- 122.
- 123.↵
- 124.↵
- 125.
- 126.↵
- 127.↵
- 128.↵
- 129.↵
- 130.↵
- 131.↵
- 132.↵
- 133.↵
- 134.↵
- 135.↵
