Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35164801›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2022

Strategies to expand corporate autonomy by the tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverage industry: a scoping review of reviews.

Connie Hoe, Caitlin Weiger, Marela Kay R Minosa, Fernanda Alonso, Adam D Koon, Joanna E Cohen

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. "International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Connie HoeJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. conniehoe@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8008-4010
Caitlin WeigerJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Marela Kay R MinosaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Fernanda AlonsoJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Adam D KoonJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Joanna E CohenJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY FELLOWSHIPT32CA009314 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Corinne E. Joshu, Meghan Bridgid Moran · 1985 to 2026
$11.2M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009314
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNoncommunicable diseases contribute to over 70% of global deaths each year. Efforts to address this epidemic are complicated by the presence of powerful corporate actors. Despite this, few attempts have been made to synthesize existing evidence of the strategies used to advance corporate interests across industries. Given this, our study seeks to answer the questions: 1) Is there an emergent taxonomy of strategies used by the tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) industries to expand corporate autonomy? 2) How are these strategies similar and how are they different?

methodsUnder the guidance of a framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, a scoping review was carried out whereby six databases were searched in June 2021 to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature. To be included in this review, studies had to explicitly discuss the strategies used by the tobacco, alcohol, and/or sugar-sweetened beverage multinational corporations and be considered review articles aimed to synthesize existing evidence from at least one of the three industries. Eight hundred and fifty-eight articles were selected for full review and 59 articles were retained for extraction, analysis, and categorization.

resultsResults identified six key strategies the industries used: 1) influencing government policy making and implementation, 2) challenging unfavorable science, 3) creating a positive image, 4) manipulating markets, 5) mounting legal challenges, and 6) anticipating future scenarios. Despite these similarities, there are few but important differences. Under the strategy of influencing government policy making and implementation, for example, literature showed that the alcohol and SSB industries have been "privileged with high levels of participation" within international public health organizations.

conclusionsUnderstanding how industries resist efforts to control them is important for public health advocates working to reduce consumption of and death and diseases resulting from harmful commodities. Moreover, there is a greater need for the public health community to generate consensus about how to ethically engage or not engage with industries that produce unhealthy commodities. More studies are also needed to build the evidence base of industry tactics to resist regulation, particularly in the case of SSB, and in low-and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Noncommunicable DiseasesSugar-Sweetened BeveragesTobacco IndustryHumansPublic HealthReview Literature as TopicTaxesAlcohol industryCommercial determinants of healthCorporate strategiesNoncommunicable diseasesSugar-sweetened beverage industryTobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID35164801
PMCPMC8845406
OpenAlexW4213171224

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.