Corporate policy influence
The products of tobacco, alcohol and food industries are responsible for a significant and growing proportion of the global burden of disease (Gilmore, Savell and Collin, 2011). Smoking and alcohol combined account for 12.5% of global deaths and 19.5% in high-income countries, while six diet-related risk factors account for 13.6% and 17.5% of deaths, respectively. Arguably the greatest challenge and opportunity for public health lies in reducing the contributions of tobacco use, unhealthy diet and harmful alcohol consumption to the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (Gilmore, Savell and Collin, 2011). This demonstrates a need to improve our understanding of how corporations contribute to this disease burden, both directly through the promotion of products damaging to health and indirectly through influence over public policy.
The importance of the second of these areas of investigation has been stressed in the Preamble to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which recognises the need for Parties to the Convention to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts, and the need to be informed of activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control efforts.
Our research takes three broad approaches to exploring industry political activity. One of the most exciting and potentially significant approaches concerns the industry’s exploitation of relatively new initiatives, such as the European Union’s Better Regulation agenda and corporate social responsibility (CSR), to influence policy. Another innovative approach has involved researchers developing applied models of corporate political activity to be used by policymakers. In addition to this, we also examine tobacco industry political activity in a variety of policy areas ranging from specific tobacco control policies to more diverse issues such as trade policy and tobacco industry privatisation. Closely related to this is our work exploring the impacts of investment and trade liberalisation on health.
Our researchers involved in corporate policy influence:
Contribution of our researchers
Corporate policy influence and better regulation
We have produced a number of ground-breaking studies exploring how the tobacco industry has shaped the European Union’s Better Regulation agenda (Smith et al, 2010, Smith et at, 2010a, Smith et al, 2009). Work continues into how tobacco companies use Better Regulation tools such as impact assessment, risk assessment and stakeholder consultation to influence public policy.
Corporate social responsibility and policy influence
Tobacco companies have a widely documented track record of using CSR practices politically to shape government policies so that they have as limited an impact on their revenue as possible. Examples of this include untested voluntary codes on marketing which were originally designed to pre-empt the introduction of legally binding restrictions and youth smoking prevention schemes (largely ineffective measures aimed at dissuading policymakers of the need for general marketing restrictions). CSR for tobacco companies, in other words, is very much a political activity, similar to lobbying politicians and political advertising. In many cases, what tobacco companies want to achieve is at odds with the broader public good. Amongst other things, we have explored the use of CSR to gain access to policy élites (Fooks et al, 2011), mapped the political effects of tobacco industry philanthropy (Fooks, forthcoming) and examined the thinking behind CSR in the tobacco industry (Fooks, et al 2012). Work mapping the political effects of Corporate Social Responsibility continues.
Additional research has focused on the thinking behind and likely effects of the Public Health Responsibility Deal (Gilmore, et al, 2011; Fooks, et al, forthcoming).
Mapping corporate policy influence
Tobacco industry documents offer the most empirically rich and diverse resource on corporate political activity. Our researchers are currently trying to pull this literature together to produce applied models of industry political influence that can be used by policymakers to aid their understanding of tactics and arguments used by the industry and third parties working with the industry.
In recognition of the growing body of literature in this area we have also started to synthesise the literature on industry influence in key policy areas through systematic review. The first systematic review examines industry efforts to influence tobacco taxation policy (Smith et al, 2012)
Tobacco industry privatisation
Whilst state-owned tobacco companies still account for 40% of global cigarette production, many state-owned enterprises have been privatised. We have undertaken extensive work exploring the effect of corporate influence in reducing the economic benefits of privatisation and the effect of privatisation in changing the policy environment for tobacco control and, in turn, the impacts of privatisation on levels of tobacco use.
Industry influence on trade policy
Trade policy can have a profound impact on health. In conjunction with researchers at the University of Edinburgh, we continue to explore tobacco industry attempts to shape policies and practices relating to market liberalisation, regional trade organisation and international trade institutions (such as the World Trade Organisation).
Publications by our researchers
Corporate policy influence and better regulation
Skafida V, Silver K, Rechel B, Gilmore A. Change in tobacco excise policy in Bulgaria: the role of tobacco industry lobbying and smuggling Tob Control. Published Online First: 10 November 2012. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050600
Smith, K. , Fooks, G., Collin, J., Weishaar, H. and Gilmore, A., 2010. Is the increasing policy use of Impact Assessment in Europe likely to undermine efforts to achieve healthy public policy? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 64 (6), pp. 478-487.
Smith, K. E. , Fooks, G., Collin, J., Weishaar, H., Mandal, S. and Gilmore, A. B., 2010. “Working the system” —British American Tobacco's influence on the European Union Treaty and its implications for policy: an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents. PLoS Medicine , 7 (1), e1000202.
Smith, K. E. , Gilmore, A. B., Fooks, G., Collin, J. and Weishaar, H., 2009. Tobacco industry attempts to undermine Article 5.3 and the "good governance" trap. Tobacco Control, 18 (6), pp. 509-511.
Corporate social responsibility and public health
Gilmore, A. B. and Fooks, G., 2012. Global Fund needs to address conflict of interest. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90 (1),p.p. 71-72.
Fooks, G. , Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C. and Lee, K., 2012. The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics . DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1250-5.
Fooks, G. J. , Gilmore, A. B., Collin, J., Holden, C. and Kelly, L., 2011.Corporate social responsibility and access to policy elites: an analysis of tobacco industry documents. PLoS Medicine, 8 (8), e1001076.
Gilmore, A. B. , Savell, E. and Collin, J., 2011.Public health, corporations and the New Responsibility Deal: promoting partnerships with vectors of disease? Journal of Public Health, 33 (1), pp. 2-4.
Knai, C., Gilmore, A., Lock, K. and McKee, M., 2010. Public health research funding: independence is important. The Lancet, 376 (9735), pp. 75-77.
Collin J, Gilmore A., 2002. Corporate (anti)social (ir)responsibility: Transnational tobacco companies and the attempted subversion of global health policy. Global Social Policy, 2(3): 354-60.
Mapping corporate policy influence
Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB. 2012. What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tobacco Control Aug 12 [Epub ahead of print]
Gruning, T., Weishaar, H., Collin, J. and Gilmore, A., 2012. Tobacco industry attempts to influence and use the German government to undermine the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control , 21 (1), pp. 30-38.
Tobacco industry privatisation
Roberts B, Gilmore A, Stickley A, Rotman D, Haerpfer C, Prohoda V, McKee M., 2012. Changes in smoking prevalence in eight countries of the former Soviet Union between 2001 and 2010. American Journal of Public Health, July; 102:7
Gilmore, A. , Fooks, G. and McKee, M., 2011.A review of the impacts of tobacco industry privatisation: implications for policy. Global Public Health, 6 (6), pp. 621-642.
Stuckler, D., Basurra, S., Gilmore, A., Batniji, R., Ooms, G., Marphatia, A. A., Hammonds, R. and McKee, M., 2010. An evaluation of the International Monetary Fund's claims about public health. International Journal of Health Services, 40 (2), pp. 327-332.
Gilmore, A. , Fooks, G. and McKee, M., 2009. The International Monetary Fund and Tobacco: a product like any other? International Journal of Health Services, 39 (4), pp. 789-793.
Perlman F, Bobak M, Gilmore A, McKee M., 2007 Trends in the prevalence of smoking in Russia during the transition to a market economy. Tobacco Control,16: 299-305.
Gilmore A, Collin J, Townsend J., 2007. Transnational Tobacco Company Influence on Tax Policy During Privatization of a State Monopoly: British American Tobacco and Uzbekistan. Am J Public Health, 97: 2001-9. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2005.078378v1
Gilmore A, McKee M, Collin J., 2007. The invisible hand. How British American Tobacco precluded competition in Uzbekistan. Tobacco Control,16: 239-47.
Bobak M, Gilmore A, McKee M, Rose R, Marmot M., 2006. Changes in smoking prevalence in Russia, 1996-2004. Tobacco Control, 15: 131-5.
Gilmore A, Collin J, McKee M., 2006. British American Tobacco’s erosion of health legislation in Uzbekistan. British Medical Journal, 332: 355-58.
Gilmore A, McKee M., 2005. Exploring the impact of foreign direct investment on tobacco consumption in the former Soviet Union. Tobacco Control,14: 13-21.
Gilmore A, Radu-Loghin C, Zatushevski I, McKee M., 2005. Pushing up smoking incidence: plans for a privatised tobacco industry in Moldova. Lancet, 365: 1354-59.
Pomerleau J, Gilmore A, McKee M, Rose R, Haerpfer C., 2004. Determinants of smoking in eight countries of the former Soviet Union: results from the Living Conditions, Lifestyles and Health Study. Addiction, 99: 1577-85.
Gilmore A, Pomerleau J, McKee M, Rose R, Haerpfer C et al., 2004. Prevalence of smoking in eight countries of the former Soviet Union. Results from the Living Conditions, Lifestyles and Health Study. Am J Public Health, 94: 2177-84.
Bozicevic I, Gilmore A, Novotny N., 2004. Tobacco use, a major public health issue in South East Europe. Eurohealth, 9: 1-4. (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/eurohealth/vol9no4.pdf)
Gilmore A, McKee M., 2004. Moving east: how the transnational tobacco companies gained entry to the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union. Part I: Establishing cigarette imports. Tobacco Control,13: 143-50.
Gilmore A, McKee M., 2004. Moving east: how the transnational tobacco companies gained entry to the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union. Part II: an overview of priorities and tactics used to establish a manufacturing presence. Tobacco Control,13: 151-60.
Gilmore A, McKee M., 2004. Tobacco and transition: an overview of industry investments, impact and influence in the former Soviet Union. Tobacco Control,13: 136-42.
Trade policy
Holden, C., Lee, K., Fooks, G. J. and Wander, N., 2010. The impact of regional trade integration on firm organization and strategy: British American Tobacco in the Andean Pact. Business and Politics , 12 (4), Article 3.
Holden, C., Lee, K., Gilmore , A., Fooks, G. and Wander, N., 2010. Trade policy, health and corporate influence: British American Tobacco and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. International Journal of Health Services , 40 (3), pp. 421-441
Lee K, Kinh HV, MacKenzie R, Gilmore A, Collin J., 2008. Gaining access to Vietnam’s cigarette market: British American Tobacco’s strategy to enter ‘a huge market which will become enormous’. Global Public Health, 3: 1-25.
Lee K, Gilmore A, Collin J. Breaking and re-entering: British American Tobacco in China 1979-2000. Tobacco Control 2004; 13 Supp II: ii88-95.
Gilmore A, Zatonski W., 2002. Free trade and the protection of health: the implications of EU accession for tobacco consumption in Poland. Eurohealth, 8: 31-3.
Gilmore A, Österberg E, Heloma A, Zatonski W; Delcheva E, McKee M., 2004. Free trade versus the protection of health: the examples of alcohol and tobacco. In: Health Policy and European Union enlargement. MacLehose L, McKee M, Nolte E (eds). Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp.198-224.
Gilmore A, McKee M., 2004. Tobacco-control policy in the European Union. In: Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health. Feldman E, Bayer R (eds). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp.219-54.
Toacco industry influence on tobacco control policies
Joossens L, Gilmore AB. The transnational tobacco companies’ strategy to promote Codentify, their inadequate tracking and tracing standard. Tob Control Published Online First: 12 March 2013. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050796
Gilmore, A. B. , 2012. Understanding the vector in order to plan effective tobacco control policies: An analysis of contemporary tobacco industry materials. Tobacco Control , 21 (2), pp. 119-126.
Shirane R, Smith K, Ross H, Silver KE, Williams S, et al. (2012) Tobacco Industry Manipulation of Tobacco Excise and Tobacco Advertising Policies in the Czech Republic: An Analysis of Tobacco Industry Documents. PLoS Med, 9(6): e1001248. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001248
Weishaar H, Gilmore A, Smith K, Collin J, Grüning T, Mandal S., 2012. Global heath governance and the commercial sector: Tobacco company strategies to influence the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. PLoS Medicine, 9(6): e1001249. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001249
Grüning T, Weishaar H, Collin J, Gilmore A., 2011. Tobacco industry attempts to influence and use the German government to undermine the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control 10.1136/tc.2010.042093 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/06/15/tc.2010.042093.full.pdf
Owusu-Dabo E, Lewis S, McNeil A, Anderson S, Gilmore A, Britton J., 2009. Smoking in Ghana: A Review of Tobacco Industry Activity. Tobacco Control 2009;18: 206-11. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/18/3/206
Grüning T, Strünck C, Gilmore A., 2008. ’Puffing away? Politics of tobacco control in Germany’. German Politics,17: 140-164. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a793639687&fulltext=713240928
Bachinger E, McKee M, Gilmore A., 2008. Tobacco Policies in Nazi Germany: Not As Simple As It Seems. Public Health, 122: 497-505. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18222506?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVBrief
Patel P, Collin J, Gilmore A., 2007. “The law was actually drafted by us but the Government is to be congratulated on its wise actions”: British American Tobacco and public policy in Kenya. Tobacco Control,16: e1. http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/16/1/e1
Grüning T, Gilmore A, McKee M., 2006. Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany. Am J Public Health, 96: 20-32.
Pilkington P, Gilmore A., 2004. The Living Tomorrow Project: how Philip Morris has used a Belgian tourist attraction to promote ventilation approaches to the control of second hand smoke. Tobacco Control,13: 375-8.
Gilmore A, Collin J, McKee M., 2006. British American Tobacco’s erosion of health legislation in Uzbekistan. British Medical Journal, 332: 355-58.
Gilmore A, Collin J, Townsend J., 2007. Transnational Tobacco Company Influence on Tax Policy During Privatization of a State Monopoly: British American Tobacco and Uzbekistan. Am J Public Health 2007; 97: 2001-9. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2005.078378v1
