ArticlePublic health nutrition2017
Are Big Food's corporate social responsibility strategies valuable to communities? A qualitative study with parents and children.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food-related sponsorship of children's sports clubs in two Canadian policy environments: a survey of sports club representatives.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- The physical activity and nutrition-related corporate social responsibility initiatives of food and beverage companies in Canada and implications for public health.BMC public health · 2020Article
- The Extent and Nature of Food and Beverage Company Sponsorship of Children's Sports Clubs in Canada: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- The Impact of Voluntary Policies on Parents' Ability to Select Healthy Foods in Supermarkets: A Qualitative Study of Australian Parental Views.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRecent studies have identified parents and children as two target groups whom Big Food hopes to positively influence through its corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. The current preliminary study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of parents and children's awareness and interpretation of Big Food's CSR strategies to understand how CSR shapes their beliefs about companies.
designCommunity-based qualitative semi-structured interviews.
settingNew South Wales, Australia. SUBJECTS: Parents (n 15) and children aged 8-12 years (n 15).
resultsParents and children showed unprompted recognition of CSR activities when shown McDonald's and Coca-Cola brand logos, indicating a strong level of association between the brands and activities that target the settings of children. When discussing CSR strategies some parents and most children saw value in the activities, viewing them as acts of merit or worth. For some parents and children, the companies' CSR activities were seen as a reflection of the company's moral attributes, which resonated with their own values of charity and health. For others, CSR strategies were in conflict with companies' core business. Finally, some also viewed the activities as harmful, representing a deceit of the public and a smokescreen for the companies' ultimately unethical behaviour.
conclusionsA large proportion of participants valued the CSR activities, signalling that denormalising CSR to sever the strong ties between the community and Big Food will be a difficult process for the public health community. Efforts to gain public acceptance for action on CSR may need greater levels of persuasion to gain public support of a comprehensive and restrictive approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.