AJPH LETTERS AND RESPONSES CONTRAINDICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO NUANCED CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
I
agree with Tempels et al.1 that health is dependent on a host of social determinants and that corporations could contribute to solutions to health problems. What most concerns me about the authors’ thesis of a more “nuanced” role for corporations is that they seem to have succumbed to tactics accelerated by business interests in the 1970s2 that promulgate the position that government is ineffective, regulations and taxes are burdensome, and the business model and profit motive hold the best solutions to societal problems. By undermining government’s legitimate role in having the primary responsibility to protect health, proponents proffer voluntary corporate action as the viable alternative. A pro-business bias has been so ingrained into society that many people are unaware of it. Some public health professionals have fallen prey and been co-opted, deciding that the only alternative to the dominate corporate culture is to partner with corporations, accept their research and program funding, and acquiesce to their disproportionate influence on democracy. The authors’ proposals that corporations lobby for taxation and regulation and conduct Letters to the editor referring to a recent AJPH article are encouraged up to 3 months after the article’s appearance. By submitting a letter to the editor, the author gives permission for its publication in AJPH. Letters should not duplicate material being published or submitted elsewhere. The editors reserve the right to edit and abridge letters and to publish responses. Text is limited to 400 words and 7 references. Submit online at www. editorialmanager.com/ajph. Queries should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Alfredo Morabia, MD, PhD, at [email protected].
June 2017, Vol 107, No. 6
AJPH
◢
science as a means to increase corporate responsibility for health are controverted by reality. Lobbying by corporations and their associations is already so extensive as to constitute “legal corruption.”3 Stemming from that, many corporations pay less than the statutory income tax rate or pay nothing, resulting in heavy costs to society4 such as the “ineffective” government programs to which the authors alluded. Their proposal that corporations conduct research on health and inform consumers is contraindicated by the evidence that corporate-influenced research and communication are corrupt.5 The article also perpetuates the erroneous and distorting discourse underlying “corporate social responsibility” according to which a corporation can be a “saint,” be motivated by “ethical considerations,” be “moral” or “responsible,” and have a “personality.” Although corporations are established and managed by humans who can manifest such characteristics, a corporation is an institution on a paper charter subject to human government’s laws, policies, and court rulings. Rather than participating in a “nuanced” endorsement of greater corporate influence in health governance, public health professionals could take two paths to directly address corporate influences on health and democracy. Public health researchers could help fill the void in research on the influence of corporations on democratic processes and effects on health policy.6 Public health advocates could join others in working toward alternatives7 to the “corporate playbook” that would protect health and restore democratic control over corporations. William H. Wiist, DHSc, MPH, MS ABOUT THE AUTHOR William H. Wiist is with the Global Health Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Correspondence should be sent to William H. Wiist, DHSc, MPH, MS, Center for Global Health, 204 Bates Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5109 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link. This letter was accepted March 2, 2017. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303774
REFERENCES 1. Tempels T, Verweij M, Blok V. Big Food’s ambivalence: seeking profit and responsibility for health. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(3):402–406. 2. Reclaim Democracy. The Powell memo. Available at: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis. Accessed March 16, 2017. 3. Kaufmann D, Vicente PC. Legal corruption. Econ Polit. 2011;23(2):195–219. 4. US Government Accountability Office. Corporate tax expenditures: information on estimated revenue losses and related federal spending programs. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653120.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2017. 5. Union of Concerned Scientists. Heads they win, tails we lose: how corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense. Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/centerscience-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/ how-corporations-corrupt-science.html#.WJAiG_ krI2w. Accessed March 16, 2017. 6. Wiist WH. Studying the influence of corporations on democratic processes. In: Lee K, Hawkins B, eds. Researching Corporations and Global Health Governance: An Interdisciplinary Guide. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016:173–187. 7. Wiist WH. The corporate play book, health, and democracy: the snack food and beverage industry’s tactics in context. In: Stuckler D, Siegel K, eds. Sick Societies: Responding to the Global Challenge of Chronic Disease. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2011: 204–216.
TEMPELS ET AL. RESPOND
T
he response to our article by Wiist and the editorial by Marks1 reflect how, in a polarized debate, other views are easily seen as being on the other side of the divide. Both authors seem to interpret our position as one that partly explains away dubious practices of Big Food by pointing out how industry also takes responsibility—for example, in public–private partnerships. This is not what we aimed to set out, so some clarification is in order. The core argument in our article is a normative one: we hold that the market should not be viewed as a nonmoral-free zone, and that businesses do have certain moral obligations to society. As Wiist claims, government is indeed the chief guardian of public health, but that does not reduce or take away corporate responsibility—especially if businesses in many ways can make a difference and contribute to health as well. The moral obligations of the
Wiist et al.
Letters and Responses
e5
AJPH LETTERS AND RESPONSES
industry to promote healthy nutrition are not just limited to the legal rules that can (and should!) be imposed on them. How far such obligations go is an open question, and most companies still have a long way to go, but that does not take away that others do take their responsibility for health seriously. At the same time, the problem of integrity as put forward by Marks is fundamental. We have not yet dealt with the question if and how integrity can be realized given the competing demands in business—an important issue in business ethics.2,3 Yet, it may be clear that at least some practices—for example aggressive marketing of products that are known to contribute to noncommunicable diseases—are inconsistent with a basic moral responsibility to contribute to health. We agree with Marks that the debate is not only about the integrity of industry. In public–private collaborations, the integrity of government and public health agencies is at stake as well. A necessary prerequisite for trustworthy public–private partnerships is therefore that minimum standards are upheld and maintained by government (e.g., a ban on sale of certain unhealthy products at schools). On the other hand, government agencies are also limited in their capacity and power to promote healthier nutrition habits, and more progress in health can be made if companies use their product innovation and marketing skills to the benefit of public health. Collaboration between governments and producers and retailers that are really committed to health can be fruitful, and even morally desirable.
REFERENCES 1. Marks JH. Caveat partner: sharing responsibility for health with the food industry. Am J Public Health. 2017; 107(3):360–361. 2. Maak T. Undivided corporate responsibility: towards a theory of corporate integrity. J Bus Ethics. 2008;82(2): 353–368. 3. Solomon RC. Corporate roles, personal virtues: an Aristotelean approach to business ethics. Bus Ethics Q. 1992;2(3):317–339.
Tjidde Tempels, MSc, MA Marcel Verweij, PhD Vincent Blok, PhD, MBA ABOUT THE AUTHORS All of the authors are with the Philosophy Group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Vincent Blok is also with the Management Studies Group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University. Correspondence should be sent to Tjidde Tempels, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http:// www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link. This letter was accepted March 2, 2017. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303775
CONTRIBUTORS All of the authors contributed equally to this letter.
e6
Letters and Responses
Wiist et al.
AJPH
June 2017, Vol 107, No. 6
I
agree with Tempels et al.1 that health is dependent on a host of social determinants and that corporations could contribute to solutions to health problems. What most concerns me about the authors’ thesis of a more “nuanced” role for corporations is that they seem to have succumbed to tactics accelerated by business interests in the 1970s2 that promulgate the position that government is ineffective, regulations and taxes are burdensome, and the business model and profit motive hold the best solutions to societal problems. By undermining government’s legitimate role in having the primary responsibility to protect health, proponents proffer voluntary corporate action as the viable alternative. A pro-business bias has been so ingrained into society that many people are unaware of it. Some public health professionals have fallen prey and been co-opted, deciding that the only alternative to the dominate corporate culture is to partner with corporations, accept their research and program funding, and acquiesce to their disproportionate influence on democracy. The authors’ proposals that corporations lobby for taxation and regulation and conduct Letters to the editor referring to a recent AJPH article are encouraged up to 3 months after the article’s appearance. By submitting a letter to the editor, the author gives permission for its publication in AJPH. Letters should not duplicate material being published or submitted elsewhere. The editors reserve the right to edit and abridge letters and to publish responses. Text is limited to 400 words and 7 references. Submit online at www. editorialmanager.com/ajph. Queries should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Alfredo Morabia, MD, PhD, at [email protected].
June 2017, Vol 107, No. 6
AJPH
◢
science as a means to increase corporate responsibility for health are controverted by reality. Lobbying by corporations and their associations is already so extensive as to constitute “legal corruption.”3 Stemming from that, many corporations pay less than the statutory income tax rate or pay nothing, resulting in heavy costs to society4 such as the “ineffective” government programs to which the authors alluded. Their proposal that corporations conduct research on health and inform consumers is contraindicated by the evidence that corporate-influenced research and communication are corrupt.5 The article also perpetuates the erroneous and distorting discourse underlying “corporate social responsibility” according to which a corporation can be a “saint,” be motivated by “ethical considerations,” be “moral” or “responsible,” and have a “personality.” Although corporations are established and managed by humans who can manifest such characteristics, a corporation is an institution on a paper charter subject to human government’s laws, policies, and court rulings. Rather than participating in a “nuanced” endorsement of greater corporate influence in health governance, public health professionals could take two paths to directly address corporate influences on health and democracy. Public health researchers could help fill the void in research on the influence of corporations on democratic processes and effects on health policy.6 Public health advocates could join others in working toward alternatives7 to the “corporate playbook” that would protect health and restore democratic control over corporations. William H. Wiist, DHSc, MPH, MS ABOUT THE AUTHOR William H. Wiist is with the Global Health Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Correspondence should be sent to William H. Wiist, DHSc, MPH, MS, Center for Global Health, 204 Bates Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5109 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link. This letter was accepted March 2, 2017. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303774
REFERENCES 1. Tempels T, Verweij M, Blok V. Big Food’s ambivalence: seeking profit and responsibility for health. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(3):402–406. 2. Reclaim Democracy. The Powell memo. Available at: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis. Accessed March 16, 2017. 3. Kaufmann D, Vicente PC. Legal corruption. Econ Polit. 2011;23(2):195–219. 4. US Government Accountability Office. Corporate tax expenditures: information on estimated revenue losses and related federal spending programs. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653120.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2017. 5. Union of Concerned Scientists. Heads they win, tails we lose: how corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense. Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/centerscience-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/ how-corporations-corrupt-science.html#.WJAiG_ krI2w. Accessed March 16, 2017. 6. Wiist WH. Studying the influence of corporations on democratic processes. In: Lee K, Hawkins B, eds. Researching Corporations and Global Health Governance: An Interdisciplinary Guide. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016:173–187. 7. Wiist WH. The corporate play book, health, and democracy: the snack food and beverage industry’s tactics in context. In: Stuckler D, Siegel K, eds. Sick Societies: Responding to the Global Challenge of Chronic Disease. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2011: 204–216.
TEMPELS ET AL. RESPOND
T
he response to our article by Wiist and the editorial by Marks1 reflect how, in a polarized debate, other views are easily seen as being on the other side of the divide. Both authors seem to interpret our position as one that partly explains away dubious practices of Big Food by pointing out how industry also takes responsibility—for example, in public–private partnerships. This is not what we aimed to set out, so some clarification is in order. The core argument in our article is a normative one: we hold that the market should not be viewed as a nonmoral-free zone, and that businesses do have certain moral obligations to society. As Wiist claims, government is indeed the chief guardian of public health, but that does not reduce or take away corporate responsibility—especially if businesses in many ways can make a difference and contribute to health as well. The moral obligations of the
Wiist et al.
Letters and Responses
e5
AJPH LETTERS AND RESPONSES
industry to promote healthy nutrition are not just limited to the legal rules that can (and should!) be imposed on them. How far such obligations go is an open question, and most companies still have a long way to go, but that does not take away that others do take their responsibility for health seriously. At the same time, the problem of integrity as put forward by Marks is fundamental. We have not yet dealt with the question if and how integrity can be realized given the competing demands in business—an important issue in business ethics.2,3 Yet, it may be clear that at least some practices—for example aggressive marketing of products that are known to contribute to noncommunicable diseases—are inconsistent with a basic moral responsibility to contribute to health. We agree with Marks that the debate is not only about the integrity of industry. In public–private collaborations, the integrity of government and public health agencies is at stake as well. A necessary prerequisite for trustworthy public–private partnerships is therefore that minimum standards are upheld and maintained by government (e.g., a ban on sale of certain unhealthy products at schools). On the other hand, government agencies are also limited in their capacity and power to promote healthier nutrition habits, and more progress in health can be made if companies use their product innovation and marketing skills to the benefit of public health. Collaboration between governments and producers and retailers that are really committed to health can be fruitful, and even morally desirable.
REFERENCES 1. Marks JH. Caveat partner: sharing responsibility for health with the food industry. Am J Public Health. 2017; 107(3):360–361. 2. Maak T. Undivided corporate responsibility: towards a theory of corporate integrity. J Bus Ethics. 2008;82(2): 353–368. 3. Solomon RC. Corporate roles, personal virtues: an Aristotelean approach to business ethics. Bus Ethics Q. 1992;2(3):317–339.
Tjidde Tempels, MSc, MA Marcel Verweij, PhD Vincent Blok, PhD, MBA ABOUT THE AUTHORS All of the authors are with the Philosophy Group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Vincent Blok is also with the Management Studies Group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University. Correspondence should be sent to Tjidde Tempels, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http:// www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link. This letter was accepted March 2, 2017. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303775
CONTRIBUTORS All of the authors contributed equally to this letter.
e6
Letters and Responses
Wiist et al.
AJPH
June 2017, Vol 107, No. 6
