Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41782165›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2026

Logics of (dis)engagement: mapping variation in non-government norms and approaches to alcohol, ultra-processed food and related industries - a case study from Australia.

Belinda Townsend, Jeff Collin, Katherine Cullerton, Kathrin Lauber, Liz Arnanz, Jane Martin, Fran Baum, Sharon Friel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Belinda TownsendSchool of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. bel.townsend@outlook.com.
Jeff CollinSchool of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Katherine CullertonSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Kathrin LauberSchool of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Liz ArnanzNCD Alliance, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jane MartinFood for Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
Fran BaumUniversity of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Sharon FrielSchool of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council Linkage program LP200100100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA central question in contemporary health governance is how to prevent undue corporate influence. There is limited practical guidance beyond the tobacco control model. Global partnership approaches have continued to promote alcohol and ultra-processed food (UPF) industry engagement, and these industries have influenced policy and governance in ways that benefit their interests, often to the detriment of strong health regulation. In Australia industry influence has delayed the introduction of mandatory alcohol health warning labels and ensured voluntary rather than mandatory front of pack food labelling. This qualitative study is the first to our knowledge to map underlying institutional logics shaping variation in the interactions of NGOs who are not reliant on industry core funding with alcohol, UPF and related industries.

resultsDrawing on thirty interviews with senior policy and advocacy staff from nongovernment organisations active in alcohol and/or UPF advocacy in Australia, we find shared opposition to partnerships with the alcohol industry and significant variation towards approaches to interactions with the UPF industry. All interviewees spoke of challenges in delineating the interests of other industries that may work with alcohol and UPF, such as supermarkets and retailers, advertising agencies and public relation firms, and banks and investment entities. We identify four institutional logics for disengagement with alcohol and UPF industries: a logic of reputational risk, a logic of delegitimation, an FCTC logic, and a logic of competing interests. In contrast, we find two logics for limited engagement with alcohol and UPF industries: a logic of intelligence gathering, and a logic of ‘acting reasonable’. Finally, we identify two logics for engagement with a wider range of industries: a logic of partnership and a logic of revenue raising. Only a small number of organisations had formal written policies on conflicts of interest.

conclusionsWe find that many organisations have conflicting internal logics creating challenges for organisational coherence. The development of internal risk assessments by some organisations indicate efforts by staff to prevent undue corporate influence. We recommend greater transparency of policies by NGOs on preventing corporate influence, preventing conflicts of interest, and approaches to engaging a variety of corporate actors, and the establishment of a global community of practice for sharing innovative tools and approaches to preventing undue corporate influence.

Indexed as

Alcoholic BeveragesFast FoodsFood IndustryAustraliaFood, ProcessedHumansOrganizationsQualitative ResearchAdvocacyAlcoholCivil societyCommercial determinants of healthConflict of interestGlobal healthHealth policyNGOUPF

Identifiers

PMID41782165
PMCPMC13069707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.