Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34857019›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2021

Maximising the wealth of few at the expense of the health of many: a public health analysis of market power and corporate wealth and income distribution in the global soft drink market.

Benjamin Wood, Phil Baker, Gyorgy Scrinis, David McCoy, Owain Williams, Gary Sacks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Investigation of Advertising and Food Environment Surrounding Primary Schools in New Zealand.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. An inflection point in global public health.Globalization and health · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Benjamin WoodGlobal Obesity Centre, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. bmwood@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8072-9066
Phil BakerInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Gyorgy ScrinisSchool of Agriculture and Food, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
David McCoyInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Owain WilliamsSchool of Political Science and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Gary SacksGlobal Obesity Centre, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany of the harms created by the global soft drink industry that directly influence human and planetary health are well documented. However, some of the ways in which the industry indirectly affects population health, via various socio-economic pathways, have received less attention. This paper aimed to analyse the extent to which market power and corporate wealth and income distribution in the global soft drink market negatively impact public health and health equity. In doing so, the paper sought to contribute to the development of a broad-based public health approach to market analysis. A range of dimensions (e.g., market concentration; financial performance; corporate wealth and income distribution) and indicators (e.g., Herfindahl Hirschman Index; earnings relative to the industry average; effective tax rates; and shareholder value ratios) were descriptively analysed. Empirical focus was placed on the two dominant global soft drink manufacturers.

resultsCoca-Cola Co, and, to a lesser extent, PepsiCo, operate across an extensive patchwork of highly concentrated markets. Both corporations control vast amounts of wealth and resources, and are able to allocate relatively large amounts of money to potentially harmful practices, such as extensive marketing of unhealthy products. Over recent decades, the proportion of wealth and income transferred by these firms to their shareholders has increased substantially; whereas the proportion of wealth and income redistributed by these two firms to the public via income taxes has considerably decreased. Meanwhile, the distribution of soft drink consumption is becoming increasingly skewed towards population groups in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

conclusionsMarket power and corporate wealth and income distribution in the global soft drink market likely compound the market's maldistribution of harms, and indirectly influence health by contributing to social and economic inequalities. Indeed, a 'double burden of maldistribution' pattern can be seen, wherein the wealth of the shareholders of the market's dominant corporations, a group over-represented by a small and wealthy elite, is maximised largely at the expense of the welfare of LMICs and lower socioeconomic groups in high-income countries. If this pattern continues, the appropriate role of the global soft drink market as part of sustainable economic development will require rethinking.

Indexed as

Health EquityPublic HealthCarbonated BeveragesHumansIncomeTaxesDistributive injusticeGlobal soft drink industryMarket powerSustainable developmentWealth and income distribution

Identifiers

PMID34857019
PMCPMC8641192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.