In recent years, the concept of commercial determinants of health (CDoH) has attracted scholarly, public policy, and activist interest. To date, however, this new attention has failed to yield a clear and consistent definition, well-defined metrics for quantifying its impact, or coherent directions for research and intervention.

By tracing the origins of this concept over 2 centuries of interactions between market forces and public health action and research, we propose an expanded framework and definition of CDoH. This conceptualization enables public health professionals and researchers to more fully realize the potential of the CDoH concept to yield insights that can be used to improve global and national health and reduce the stark health inequities within and between nations. It also widens the utility of CDoH from its main current use to study noncommunicable diseases to other health conditions such as infectious diseases, mental health conditions, injuries, and exposure to environmental threats.

We suggest specific actions that public health professionals can take to transform the burgeoning interest in CDoH into meaningful improvements in health. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2202–2211. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306491)

Amid an alarming rise in noncommunicable diseases worldwide in the early 21st century, public health scholars and activists proposed a unifying concept, the commercial determinants of health (CDoH), to explain the significant and growing influence of for-profit activities on human health. As the pace of economic globalization intensified and its geographical reach extended worldwide, evidence accumulated that CDoH were becoming an increasingly dominant force shaping global patterns of human and planetary health including health inequities within and between countries. We trace the origins of this concept and propose an expanded definition and framework for study and action on CDoH. By locating the concept of CDoH in its historical context and proposing a framework for research and action, we seek to ground the ideological, political, and economic debates about commercial influence in empirical evidence. We identify steps public health professionals can take to improve population health and reduce health inequities by tackling CDoH.

Although the term was new, the recognition that the economic and political arrangements that govern and sustain commerce also influence public health has been around for more than 200 years. In the last 2 decades, analyses have shown that the market-oriented global system has contributed to public health crises, from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) to the COVID-19 pandemic, the global climate emergency, and “deaths of despair” from alcohol, drugs, changing work demands, and firearms.1,2 While evidence on commercial influences on health most fully explores the role of the tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food industries on the global rise of NCDs,3 others have examined their role in infectious diseases such as HIV and COVID-19, depression and anxiety, iatrogenesis and limited access to health care, firearm injuries and deaths, physical inactivity, automobile crashes, and air pollution.4,5

Despite renewed interest in such influences, several obstacles complicate the use of the CDoH concept as a practical tool to address the public health challenges of the 21st century. Lacking are a shared comprehensive definition and clear metrics for quantifying the impact of CDoH. Reasons for the relative neglect include (1) inadequate funding for empirical research on the role of commercial influences; (2) limited synthesis of existing empirical studies and metrics to quantify exposures or assign fraction of disease attributable to CDoH across place, commodity, and industry; (3) dominance of reductionist biomedical and behavioral paradigms; and (4) intimidation of CDoH researchers by corporations.6

Ideological debates also block action. Some researchers and practitioners claim that adverse health effects of commercial influences are outweighed by their benefits, including economic growth and increases in longevity.7 Others assert that voluntary public‒private partnerships are the best way to resolve conflicts between public health and business goals and that public health professionals should focus on developing the skills to negotiate mutually acceptable compromises rather than impose stringent regulations that jeopardize beneficial economic growth.8

Proponents of greater attention to CDoH argue that commercial actors externalize the health burdens of their harmful practices, obscuring their costs, and claim that commercial influences contribute to widening national and international inequalities in health. Whatever positive role markets play, say these critics, they warrant heightened public health attention as fundamental drivers of global patterns of health and disease.

Recent scholarship on CDoH has focused on the role of commercial actors, especially the tobacco, alcohol, and food industries, in contributing to the burden of NCDs. In 2013, World Health Organization Director Margaret Chan summarized this perspective, noting, “Efforts to prevent noncommunicable diseases go against the business interests of powerful economic operators. In my view, this is one of the biggest challenges facing health promotion.”9(p.i10) While this emphasis has helped to make commercial interests who profit from health-harming products more accountable, in our view, the focus on NCDs and harmful products limits the potential of a CDoH framework to inform wider research and action. This includes other global health challenges such as mental health, occupational health, planetary health, and infectious diseases and their upstream drivers. To better harness the CDoH concept, we need a more systematic conceptual framework. Jabareen defines conceptual frameworks as “interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon” and argues that by grounding and linking concepts to their intellectual and social origins, scholars can deepen our understanding of the “real world.”10(p51)

To create such a framework for the study of CDoH, we reviewed existing reviews of the CDoH literature,1118 including our own work spanning business sectors, populations, and academic disciplines. Two meetings of all authors, and several additional meetings by the lead authors, were held in 2019 and 2020 to synthesize this work. Figure 1 synthesizes these multiple perspectives into a single framework that can inform future research and action. Based on this review, we propose an expanded definition of CDoH and then analyze future directions for research and action on commercial influences to improve population health and health equity. Finally, we describe why an empirically grounded science on CDoH may be a useful tool for addressing some of the greatest challenges facing human and planetary health today. We also foreshadow the practical, scientific, and political obstacles that such a framework might encounter and suggest strategies to overcome them.

To enhance and sharpen the CDoH lens, we locate the concept within its historical roots. Markets and commercial actors have influenced human health since their inception. In the 17th and 18th centuries, corporations like the Dutch East India Company and then British East India Company set the stage for European imperialism and the rise of industrial capitalism. These early commercial, state-sponsored trading companies influenced health by shaping patterns of production and consumption at home and abroad, the health and well-being of workers in the imperial powers and their colonies, and government regulation.19

Over the next 2 centuries, industrial capitalism dramatically changed how markets operate, the living conditions of increasingly stratified populations, and, thus, patterns of health and disease.20 In the last 50 years, contemporary forms of capitalism, dominated by transnational corporations, financial markets, and globalization—a transformation driven by neoliberal ideology—have shaped the pathways connecting commerce, population health, and health equity. The term neoliberalism describes the mix of deregulatory, privatizing, and austerity measures that assign previously public responsibilities to the private sector,21 changes that public health scholars have described as pathways to ill health.22

The historical origins of the CDoH concept emerged from 3 principal developments. First, changes in political and economic structures modified capitalism in the last century. Second, strands of social science, public health, and medicine scholarship converged to document the impact of those changes. Third, social movements arose to challenge the prioritization of commercial over public interests. These included labor, environmental, civil rights, anticolonial, women’s, Health for All, anticorporate, consumer protection, and corporate accountability movements.23 These social mobilizations insisted that ordinary people had a role to play in demanding that businesses and governments make protecting public health a priority alongside promoting economic growth and profits.24 These challenges to the established world order constitute the foundation for changing structures and practices that can, in turn, modify patterns of health and disease.25 Some key ideas that emerged from the intersection of these influences are listed in Table A (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).

To summarize this history briefly, during the 18th and 19th centuries, industrialization by the imperial powers focused public health attention on new forms of business organization. These included changes in resource extraction and commodity production, manufacturing, and distribution, and large-scale human migration from rural to urban areas, often to live under unhealthy living conditions and poor sanitation. Over the next 100 years, as more workers were absorbed into mass production systems and factories became larger and more hazardous, occupational illnesses, injuries, and exposures became recognized as major causes of ill health.26

In Africa, Asia, and Latin America, imperialism evolved to exploit resources and workers to create a mercantile system of labor (including slavery and indentured labor) and traded commodities that increased harms to health and environments locally and globally.27 Commercial exploitation of workers, indigenous peoples, and local environments in colonized parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America continued during the 20th century, widening the health gaps between colonizing and colonized nations.28 In the past 40 years, corporate globalization has transformed supply and value chains, trade and investment rules, intellectual property rights, and overall systems of production and consumption into truly global influences on population health and disease.

Beginning in the mid-19th century, in response to health concerns, workers, reformers, and the emerging public health profession mobilized to improve working conditions, urban water and sanitation, and housing within imperialist nations. In the 1830s and 1840s, the Sanitary Movement brought public attention to the deleterious consequences of industrialization,29 and later labor movements forced governments to regulate occupational health and safety hazards.30

By the mid-20th century, reforms in industrial capitalism precipitated by the Great Depression and labor movements led to better protections for workers and stronger social safety-net programs in Europe and the United States. During the 1960s and 1970s, the civil rights, consumer protection, and environmental movements, and others campaigning for food justice, child safety, women’s health, and tobacco control, led to a spate of new regulations.31

At the same time, industrialized countries increasingly relied on expanding personal consumption, at least by some groups, to drive economic growth.32 The rise of NCDs that followed led public health researchers to focus attention on the link to consumption of unhealthy products such as alcohol, tobacco, and ultra-processed food.3,33 In recent decades, as new evidence on the health consequences of air pollution, climate change, and other toxic exposures emerged, researchers explored broader commercial determinants of these outcomes.1315

As well as increasing production and consumption of unhealthy products, commercial actors influence health and health inequities via other pathways. These include increased exposure to pollution, toxins, and social stressors; unsafe working conditions; and limiting access to life-saving health care, education, and public benefits.4,11,17 The failure to make COVID-19 (and other) vaccines equitably available to poor nations and poor communities provides a stark illustration of industry opposition to manufacturing and distribution practices that reduce profits or market control.34

Attention to each of these expanding pathways of commercial influence on health determinants and outcomes was amplified by scientific and technological change. On the scientific front, biostatistics, social epidemiology, and social medicine, and the development of new technologies to make food, produce energy, and make medical care safer, helped to raise the bar for what business could be expected to do. At the same time, parts of the business community used paid consultants, patent law, trade treaties, and their political clout to distort science that they perceived to threaten their commercial interests, a process that tobacco, fossil fuel, food, and other industries have used to manufacture doubt about any scientific findings that jeopardize profits.35

In the past 50 years, large corporations have gained substantial political and economic power, creating asymmetries that make it difficult for public health and other actors to protect well-being and reduce health inequities.16 For example, legislative changes in tax codes and tax enforcement enable corporations to shift or hide profits in ways that reduce government revenues to support health and other public services.36

It is also true, however, that social movements, governments, and civil society groups have challenged that power. These countervailing forces have won concessions from commercial actors such as new labor and environmental laws, consumer protection, and other measures that protect health against harmful commercial influences.37 More recently, environmental justice and climate movements have demanded more rigorous public oversight of producers of pollutants and toxins with a special focus on exposures of vulnerable populations.38 A chronology of the events summarized here can be found in Table A (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).

A growing body of evidence, summarized in several recent reviews,1114 shows that CDoH, broadly defined as “factors that influence health which stem from the profit motive” by West and Marteau in 2013,39(p686) are shaping global patterns of health and disease.40

Lack of consensus on the definition and understanding of CDoH remains a major obstacle to overcoming this neglect. Scholars have proposed varied definitions of CDoH, summarized in a recent review,14 and others have suggested models for considering the role of these determinants.12–14 Informed by our review of the historical evolution of the term, and addressing some of the questions earlier definitions leave unresolved, we define the commercial determinants of health as the social, political, and economic structures, norms, rules, and practices by which business activities designed to generate profits and increase market share influence patterns of health, disease, injury, disability, and death within and across populations.

What is the rationale for this definition? First, it recognizes that CDoH can both promote and harm population health. This recognition may serve to engage a wider cross-section of researchers in developing a conceptual framework and applied research, and encourage policymakers, business leaders, and advocates to increase action to address CDoH.

Second, by focusing attention on both the social structures (including norms, rules, and legal frameworks) and practices that enable and sustain commerce, the definition gives researchers and advocates a fuller range of subjects for investigation and action. It also acknowledges that structural power, generally overlooked in past work on CDoH, is a key influence.16,41 This broader perspective also acknowledges the ongoing debates about capitalism, not as a singular economic and political world order but characterized by multiple varieties, each with distinct characteristics and opportunities for health and diseases.42 Indeed, the proposed definition invites researchers to specify the differing ways that CDoH shape well-being in the varieties of capitalism now operating around the world, including the state and authoritarian modes of capitalism in China, Russia, and other nations.43

Third, by identifying the scope of CDoH as investigating patterns of health attributable to market factors operating across populations and nations, the definition sets the stage for making health inequities a focus of research and action. This contrasts with the focus of the Global Burden of Disease study, which created a single measure of mortality and morbidity to compare countries and regions but did not emphasize documenting inequities among subpopulations.44

Fourth, by making the commercial-related activities and interactions of both state and market actors of interest, the definition extends study of CDoH beyond the corporation as only one, albeit dominant, form of economic organization. It includes all for-profit companies (privately owned, partnerships, cooperatives); trade associations; accounting, advertising, public relations, media, and communications firms; lobbyists; financial institutions; probusiness think tanks; and government entities, including state-owned businesses that seek profits and regulators dominated (or “captured”) by businesses.45 In this way, the definition encourages understanding of the full range of economic and political arrangements that shape commercial activities, from the local to global, as a complex system worthy of analysis.17 It also encourages applying the CDoH lens to the operations, rules, and impact on health of the varieties of old and new markets and related regulatory regimes now operating around the world.46

Fifth, the definition expands the study of CDoH beyond “unhealthy products,” notably alcohol, ultra-processed foods, and tobacco, the most studied industry,3 to a much wider set of health-related goods and services, along with the markets and public and private actors that enable their production and consumption. Other industries that attract scrutiny through the CDoH lens included traditional and social media, extractive industries, pharmaceuticals, advertising, gaming, and entertainment sectors.

Finally, our definition sets the stage for further theoretical and empirical investigation of the extent to which CDoH are a driver of other social determinants of health (i.e., a fundamental cause of global and national health inequities),47 a subset of social determinants of health, or an alternative lens to examine social influences. Clarifying these relationships could strengthen the capacity of CDoH and social determinants of health frameworks to inform public health interventions.

Figure 1 seeks to inform the creation of a more integrated body of knowledge that can help to synthesize rapidly growing but, to date, often disjointed, bodies of work. It seeks to make these elements visible by identifying specific entities and processes that scholars of commercial influences and actors have investigated. We posit that political and economic structures shape, and are shaped by, the formulation and creation of business rules and practices, which, in turn, create the exposures and living conditions that influence health determinants and outcomes.

Ultimately, the promise of a definition, conceptualization, and framework to study CDoH is improved evidence to guide more effective interventions to minimize intersecting threats to human and planetary well-being. For each threat, we need to better understand how commercial influences play an important role in shaping why these problems are occurring, which populations are most affected, and the prevalence and distribution of the health consequences of these threats. For these reasons, CDoH warrant fuller investigation in public health.

Our definition of CDoH and Figure 1 call attention to the critical role of power in shaping the impact of commercial influences. Structural and systemic forces have over the past 50 years allocated new political and economic power to corporations and their allies. These organizations and their leaders have used this power to select market and nonmarket strategies intended to increase revenues and profit often at the cost of unintended harms to health. The decisions of tobacco, unhealthy food, and alcohol producers to shift their marketing from more regulated high-income countries to less regulated low- and middle-income ones illustrate this process.48

For the most part, in the past 2 decades, while new discoveries have benefited many individuals, they have less frequently contributed to meaningful improvements in population health and have often exacerbated rather than reduced inequities in health.49 One reason for the disappointing health impact of new discoveries is that commercial actors have used their power to shape patent laws, trade treaties, and disinformation campaigns that ensure that science and technology are deployed in ways that protect profit maximization, even if such uses harm health.

We conclude that there are several ways to deliver on the potential for CDoH to effectively frame a more impactful area of inquiry and action focused on improving population health and health equity.50

First, researchers need to identify focused research questions and appropriate methodologies to answer them. Suggestions are listed in Box 1. Some researchers have proposed research agendas for studying CDoH,51 but to guide implementation of such agendas, investigators will have to set priorities, share resources, and, as Hastings puts it, develop a “boldness of purpose” that matches the vigor with which business groups pursue their agenda.52 Among the key tasks are mapping the variability of CDoH practices, pathways, and impact across business sectors, nations, time periods, and populations. For example, how do the practices of the tobacco industry, the best studied of harmful commodity producers, differ from and resemble those of the food, alcohol, and pharmaceutical sectors? Of key importance, researchers need to assess what portion of the glaring inequities in health within and between nations can be attributed to various CDoH. Such evidence can guide the translation of growing but mostly separate bodies of evidence into cohesive practice and policy.

Table

BOX 1— Key Research and Policy Questions on Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH)

BOX 1— Key Research and Policy Questions on Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH)

Questions on
Methodologies What are the strengths and weaknesses of methodologies such as systems thinking, a holistic approach that seeks to understand how systems interact to influence each other and outcomes; health impact assessment, which seeks to judge the potential health effects of changes in policy or organizational practices; social impact assessment, a process of identifying and managing the social impacts of industrial projects; and the development of indices and scales to measure various components of CDoH? How can practice-based evidence and implementation science contribute to a deeper understanding of modifying harmful CDoH?
Priorities What specific commercial determinants impose the largest attributable burden of disease? What business sectors impose the largest burden of disease? Which contribute most to health inequities? How do CDoH influence health in low- and middle-income countries as compared to high-income countries? Which are most possible to modify in short and middle run?
Metrics What are the strengths and weaknesses of such metrics as those used in the Global Burden of Disease study, the Corporate Permeation Index, or corporate health impact assessments? What other metrics exist or could be developed to compare the impact of commercial influences across populations, nations, and business sectors?
Education and workforce development What are the skills and competencies that public health professionals and researchers need to tackle commercial determinants? (See also Box 2.) What disciplines need to contribute to a science of CDoH? How do commercial actors influence education of public health and other professionals? What strategies (e.g., litigation, regulation, public mobilization) are most effective in reducing which specific harmful influences?
Role of science How do commercial actors influence the questions researchers ask, their methods of communicating findings, and the public discussion of evidence on harms and benefits?
Change strategies How effective and under what circumstances are voluntary public‒private partnerships effective in mitigating harmful commercial influences? What role can social movements and civil society groups play in reducing harm from commercial influences? What are the advantages and disadvantages of addressing commercial actors and influences at local, regional, national, and global levels? What role should international organizations such as the World Health Organization and World Bank play in addressing CDoH? What regulatory approaches are most effective in addressing commercial influences across industries, populations, levels of economic development, and governance regimes?

Second, CDoH researchers and public health officials should identify metrics that can be used to quantify and monitor CDoH and their impact on health (Box 1). To further advance research on CDoH, scholars can use the framework in Figure 1 to identify and begin to measure a broader range of specific variables across the domains, investigate the interactions among them, and then analyze the mechanisms by which they shape health outcomes. Researchers can also identify common and differing drivers, and the specific and intersecting pathways by which CDoH influence human and planetary health through production, consumption, and environmental routes. Clarifying the specific routes by which CDoH get “embodied” in states of health and the burden of disease imposed by each will help to select priorities for intervention.

Third, to advance the science and practice of CDoH-informed public health will require new inclusive approaches to research, education, and advocacy as well as new forms of intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration and dialogue. These approaches should incorporate bodies of knowledge from public health, history, political economy, law, and other disciplines, as well as social movement theory and practice. Schools of public health can identify and ensure that their graduates master the competencies needed to limit harmful commercial influences and ensure that students acquire the requisite skills and knowledge, with some suggestions shown in Box 2.

Table

BOX 2— Proposed Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH) Competencies for Public Health Professionals and Researchers

BOX 2— Proposed Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH) Competencies for Public Health Professionals and Researchers

Graduates of schools of public health should be able to
1.

Define CDoH and discuss its history and evolving conceptions of its meaning, importance, and relationship to other determinants (e.g., biological and behavioral) and public health frameworks such as social determinants of health.

2.

Apply CDoH frameworks to the analysis of public health practice, research, and policy analysis to be able to develop research studies and interventions that contribute to effective strategies for minimizing the harms and maximizing the benefits of CDoH.

3.

Assess marketing practices and corporate political activity among major health-harming industries such as tobacco, alcohol, food and beverage, pharmaceuticals, social media, fossil fuels, and others.

4.

Identify key sources of evidence and data on the distribution, impact, and pathways by which CDoH influence health and assess the strengths and limitations of these sources.

5.

Assess the strengths and weakness of various supply-side and demand-side government policy solutions and intergovernmental agreements to reduce noncommunicable and other diseases.

6.

Assess the various strategies, tactics, countermarketing, and campaigns by advocacy groups and coalitions to address the harms of CDoH and help reduce noncommunicable diseases and other adverse outcomes.

7.

Evaluate the impact of strategies designed to reduce the harms and enhance the benefits of CDoH and communicate the findings clearly to various constituencies.

8.

Make the case for public health practice and research that address CDoH as fundamental determinants of health and health equity.

Fourth, to develop a body of practice-based evidence, public health and other professionals, along with policymakers, can evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of strategies and interventions to reduce the harmful impact of CDoH and to enhance positive effects through the co-creation of evidence-informed and practice-based bodies of knowledge. They can also assess and strengthen the capacity of their organizations to monitor and regulate CDoH. Some scholars and advocates have warned that when business interests play a growing role in bodies such as the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and national governments, these commercial actors can distort democratic governance and public accountability, reducing opportunities for protecting public health.53

Fifth, public health organizations, professionals, and training institutions can act to protect science from industry and political interference. Commercial actors appropriate new science for their private interest rather than public benefit, propagate doubt about scientific evidence that jeopardizes profitability, and hide or obfuscate their own sponsored research that contradicts their claims. By denormalizing such practices through institutional policies, laws, and social norms, the public health community can reassert the value of basing public policy on evidence.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, together with civil society organizations, social movements, and others, those seeking to reduce the harmful health influences of commercial actors must explore and propose alternatives to the paradigms and social, political, and economic models that pose the current system as inevitable and immutable.2 To expedite collaboration and knowledge exchange, researchers and advocates can strengthen and expand international and interdisciplinary networks and open dialogues with others seeking to modify commercial structures and practices. To date, public health researchers have not achieved consensus regarding whether any interactions with corporate leaders are warranted, given the extensive evidence that businesses use such interactions to co-opt, distract, or confuse public discourse. The empirical evidence on public health and corporate partnerships suggests limited benefits and significant potential adverse effects.54 At a minimum, the current power asymmetry between public health and corporations would need to be better balanced before equitable partnerships could be considered.

Researchers and policymakers who use CDoH frameworks differ in their views on the inevitability, mutability, and necessity of replacing contemporary forms of corporate-dominated capitalism with other political and economic systems. But most agree that improving public health and health equity will require significant changes in the structures, norms, rules, and practices that now sustain business activities. Furthermore, most agree that the neoliberal argument, that the invisible hands of free markets are self-regulating mechanisms that will ultimately best balance supply and demand and produce what people want and need, does not describe the world in the early 21st century. CDoH can provide a framework for researchers and practitioners with varying political and ideological stances to overcome unproductive and polarizing conflicts that “gridlock” action, making it possible to advance empirical investigations and test interventions designed to reduce harmful commercial influences on health.

For the past 2 centuries, public health progress has depended on alliances among social reformers, health professionals, researchers, and social movements. To craft such relationships to take on CDoH will require new skills, organizational forms, and forums for developing and testing strategies. Applying these lessons to the 21st century has the potential to strengthen public health’s capacity to tackle CDoH as one of the fundamental causes of the world’s most serious health, social, and environmental problems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The convenings that produced this work were funded by a planning grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

We thank Julianne Piper and Samantha Goulding for administrative and research support for this project.

Note. The opinions expressed in this article are the views of the authors and not their employers or funders.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTION

No protocol approval was necessary for this study because no human participants were involved.

References

1. Case A, Deaton A. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv161f3f8 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2. Freudenberg N. At What Cost Modern Capitalism and the Future of Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2021. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
3. Stuckler D, McKee M, Ebrahim S, Basu S. Manufacturing epidemics: the role of global producers in increased consumption of unhealthy commodities including processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco. PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001235 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Maani N, Van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Galea S. The commercial determinants of three contemporary national crises: how corporate practices intersect with the COVID-19 pandemic, economic downturn, and racial inequity. Milbank Q. 2021;99(2):503518. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12510 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Parra DC, de Sá TH, Monteiro CA, Freudenberg N. Automobile, construction and entertainment business sector influences on sedentary lifestyles. Health Promot Int. 2018;33(2):239249. MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Infante PF, Melnick R, Vainio H, Huff J. Commentary: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61(4):277281. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22811 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Pritchett L, Summers LH. Wealthier Is Healthier. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications; 1993. Google Scholar
8. Reich MR. Public‒Private Partnerships for Public Health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2002:118. Google Scholar
9. Opening address by Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization. Health Promot Int. 2014;29(suppl 1):i9i10. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau037 Google Scholar
10. Jabareen Y. Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8(4):4962. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
11. Maani N, Collin J, Friel S, et al. Bringing the commercial determinants of health out of the shadows: a review of how the commercial determinants are represented in conceptual frameworks. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(4): 660664. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz197 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Mialon M, Vandevijvere S, Carriedo-Lutzenkirchen A, et al. Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034082 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Lima JM, Galea S. Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms. Global Health. 2018;14(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0336-y MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. de Lacy-Vawdon C, Livingstone C. Defining the commercial determinants of health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1): 1022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09126-1 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. McKee M, Stuckler D. Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(9):11671170. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304510 LinkGoogle Scholar
16. Wood B, Baker P, Sacks G. Conceptualising the commercial determinants of health using a power lens: a review and synthesis of existing frameworks. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021; epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.05 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Knai C, Petticrew M, Mays N, et al. Systems thinking as a framework for analyzing commercial determinants of health. Milbank Q. 2018;96(3): 472498. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12339 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Buse K, Tanaka S, Hawkes S. Healthy people and healthy profits? Elaborating a conceptual framework for governing the commercial determinants of non-communicable diseases and identifying options for reducing risk exposure. Global Health. 2017;13(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0255-3 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Robins N. The Corporation That Changed the World. London, England: Pluto Press; 2012. Google Scholar
20. Steckel RH, Floud R, eds. Health and Welfare During Industrialization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1997. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226771595.001.0001 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
21. Harvey D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
22. Rushton S, Williams OD. Frames, paradigms and power: global health policy-making under neoliberalism. Glob Soc. 2012;26(2):147167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2012.656266 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
23. Musolino C, Baum F, Freeman T, Labonté R, Bodini C, Sanders D. Global health activists’ lessons on building social movements for Health for All. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01232-1 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Brown TM, Fee E. Social movements in health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):385398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114356 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Grinin L. Evolution of world order. In: Grinin LE, Korotayev AV, eds. Evolution and Big History. Volgograd, Russia: Uchitel Publishing House; 2016:7595. Google Scholar
26. Weindling P, ed. The Social History of Occupational Health. Beckhenham, England: Croom Helm; 1985. Google Scholar
27. Bashford A. Imperial Hygiene: A Critical History of Colonialism, Nationalism and Public Health. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. Google Scholar
28. Pratik C. Medicine & Empire: 1600–1960. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Google Scholar
29. Chadwick E. General Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain. London, England: Clowes; 1842. Google Scholar
30. Rosen G. A History of Public Health. New York, NY: M.D. Publications; 1958. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
31. Cohen L. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York, NY: Vintage Books; 2008. Google Scholar
32. Shammas C. Standard of living, consumption, and political economy over the past 500 years. In: Trentmann F, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Consumption. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2012: 211226. Google Scholar
33. Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NoncommunicableDiseases 2013‒2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013. Google Scholar
34. Sell SK. What COVID-19 reveals about twenty-first century capitalism: adversity and opportunity. Development (Rome). 2020;(63):150156. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-020-00263-z Google Scholar
35. Michaels D. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008. Google Scholar
36. Wiist WH. Public health and corporate avoidance of US federal income tax. World Med Health Policy. 2018;10(3):272300. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.274 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
37. Friel S. Redressing the corporate cultivation of consumption: releasing the weapons of the structurally weak. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.205 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Bullard RD. From civil rights to Black Lives Matter. In: Mascarenhas M, ed. Lessons in Environmental Justice. From Civil Rights to Black Lives Matter. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers; 2020:218. Google Scholar
39. West R, Marteau T. Commentary on Casswell (2013): the commercial determinants of health. Addiction. 2013;108(4):686687. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12118 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al., Lancet NCD Action Group. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Lacy-Nichols J, Marten R. Power and the commercial determinants of health: ideas for a research agenda. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2):e003850. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003850 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Hall PA. Varieties of capitalism. In: Scott RA, Buchmann MC, eds. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2015:15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
43. Dolfsma W, Grosman A. State capitalism revisited: a review of emergent forms and developments. J Econ Issues. 2019;53(2):579586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2019.1606653 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
44. Mathers C. Global Burden of Disease—an overview. In: Cockerham W, ed. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803678-5.00175-2 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
45. Mindell JS, Reynolds L, Cohen DL, McKee M. All in this together: the corporate capture of public health. BMJ. 2012;345:e8082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8082 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Roth AE. Marketplaces, markets, and market design. Am Econ Rev. 2018;108(7):16091658. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.108.7.1609 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Clouston SA, Link BG. A retrospective on fundamental cause theory: state of the literature and goals for the future. Annu Rev Sociol. 2021;47: 131156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-094912 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al., Lancet NCD Action Group. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Weiss D, Rydland HT, Øversveen E, Jensen MR, Solhaug S, Krokstad S. Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: a scoping review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195447 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Buse K, Tanaka S, Hawkes S. Healthy people and healthy profits? Elaborating a conceptual framework for governing the commercial determinants of non-communicable diseases and identifying options for reducing risk exposure. Global Health. 2017;13(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0255-3 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
51. Paichadze N, Werbick M, Ndebele P, Bari I, Hyder AA. Commercial determinants of health: a proposed research agenda. Int J Public Health. 2020; 65(7):11471149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01445-9 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Hastings G. Why corporate power is a public health priority. BMJ. 2012;345:e5124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5124. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Lee K, Smith J. The role of the business sector in global health politics. In: The Oxford Handbook of Global Health Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020: 385‒408. Google Scholar
54. Kostyak L, Shaw DM, Elger B, Annaheim B. A means of improving public health in low- and middle-income countries? Benefits and challenges of international public‒private partnerships. Public Health. 2017;149:120129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.03.005 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Related

No related items

TOOLS

SHARE

ARTICLE CITATION

Nicholas Freudenberg, DrPH , Kelley Lee, DPhil , Kent Buse, PhD , Jeff Collin, PhD , Eric Crosbie, PhD , Sharon Friel, PhD , Daniel Eisenkraft Klein, MS , Joana Madureira Lima, PhD , Robert Marten, MPP , Melissa Mialon, PhD , and Marco Zenone, MS Nicholas Freudenberg is with the Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY. Kelley Lee is with the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Kent Buse is with The George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK. Jeff Collin is with the Global Health Policy Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Eric Crosbie is with the School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada‒Reno. Sharon Friel is with the Menzies Centre for Health Governance, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Daniel Eisenkraft Klein is with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada. Joana Madureira Lima is with the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Kyrgyzstan Country Office, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Robert Marten is with the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Melissa Mialon is with Trinity Business School, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Marco Zenone is with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. “Defining Priorities for Action and Research on the Commercial Determinants of Health: A Conceptual Review”, American Journal of Public Health 111, no. 12 (December 1, 2021): pp. 2202-2211.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306491

PMID: 34878875