Lobbying and influence activities in the Pharmaceutical and Food and Beverage industries
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Bath
Department Name: Social and Policy Sciences
Abstract
My research will explore modes and channels of influence used by the pharmaceutical ("pharma") and food and beverage (F&B) industries in the UK, in particular mapping how the two industries align and differ in their attempts to influence policy-making. The two industries have major economic and public health implications and their governance involves many stakeholders and complex scientific evidence. The industries also have major implications for public and individual health and budgets. I aim to map each industry's approach to lobbying and influencing policy-making. I will also look specifically at the policy role and impact of so-called third-party organisations (such as healthcare organisations and advocacy organisations) in the context of the pharma and F&B industries in the UK. The nature of third-party organisations' expertise, attempts to influence society through policy, and relationships with other stakeholders will be key considerations.
Focusing on the pharma and F&B policy fields this project will explore four research questions:
1) What tactics do the pharma and F&B industries deploy to influence policy-making?
2) To what extent does third-party organisations' activity align with pharma and F&B industry agendas?
3) How do the two industries align and differ in their attempts to influence policy-making?
4) How powerful are the two industries in the UK?
The project will draw on the power structure research tradition examining organisational networks and associated ideologies. It will use an innovative mixed-methods design, combining "big data" and case-studies, and triangulating methods and data sources.
My research will have an academic impact through demonstrating the use of innovative methods, as well as transcending to non-academic beneficiaries including decision-makers (through casting light on the influence and mechanisms behind third-party organisation policy recommendations, unravelling the process to reveal the extent to which we can trust the outcomes) and the general public (as policymaking decisions have a direct impact on society, particularly in the domain of public health).
Focusing on the pharma and F&B policy fields this project will explore four research questions:
1) What tactics do the pharma and F&B industries deploy to influence policy-making?
2) To what extent does third-party organisations' activity align with pharma and F&B industry agendas?
3) How do the two industries align and differ in their attempts to influence policy-making?
4) How powerful are the two industries in the UK?
The project will draw on the power structure research tradition examining organisational networks and associated ideologies. It will use an innovative mixed-methods design, combining "big data" and case-studies, and triangulating methods and data sources.
My research will have an academic impact through demonstrating the use of innovative methods, as well as transcending to non-academic beneficiaries including decision-makers (through casting light on the influence and mechanisms behind third-party organisation policy recommendations, unravelling the process to reveal the extent to which we can trust the outcomes) and the general public (as policymaking decisions have a direct impact on society, particularly in the domain of public health).
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| Emma Carmel (Primary Supervisor) | |
| Emily Rickard (Student) |
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES/P000630/1 | 01/10/2017 | 30/09/2027 | |||
| 2097141 | Studentship | ES/P000630/1 | 01/10/2018 | 30/12/2021 | Emily Rickard |
| Description | A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups (PLOS One). Our objective for our first publication was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. Our key findings were: - We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). - Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. - Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. -In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177-39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146-39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies. |
| Exploitation Route | The outcomes of our research into pharmaceutical industry funding of health-related All-Party Parliamentary Groups have implications for Parliament, drug companies, and most importantly patients. Our findings build on what is already known about the pharmaceutical industry's extensive 'web of influence' which spans the healthcare sector, charities, academia, and regulatory decision-making by showing that their financial activities extend to the heart of democracy. Going forward, it is important that the public and patients are continued to be made aware of corporate interests' involvement in policy-making. This month (March 2022) I recorded a podcast for a Public Health Analyst in the US whose focus is in amplifying research exposing the various ways the pharmaceutical industry seeks to influence public policy (not yet released, but it will be on Dr Eeks 'Causes or Cures' podcast in the near future). I also co-wrote a blog for the Institute of Policy Research, University of Bath, highlighting the key outcomes and implications of the research. Ultimately, the potential for industry to influence policy-making in their favour must be minimised or better still, eradicated. |
| Sectors | Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| URL | https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2021/07/05/money-in-politics-the-case-of-the-uks-all-party-parliamentary-groups/ |
| Description | Written evidence submission In January 2021 we submitted written evidence to the Committee on Standards' Inquiry into All-Party Parliamentary Groups. This Inquiry is ongoing. (https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16212/pdf/) Written and oral evidence submissions citing our research The findings relating to our paper published in PLOS One in June 2021 (A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups) have been cited in subsequent written and oral submissions to the Committee on Standards Inquiry. Transparency International, whose mission is to end corruption by promoting transparency, accountability and integrity, also drew on our findings to inform their evidence submission. See the following excerpt: "University of Bath research on pharmaceutical companies and APPGs Research by the University of Bath revealed that sixteen of the 146 health-related APPGs in Parliament received over a £1 million in payments from 35 pharmaceutical companies between 2012-20186. Two APPGs - the APPG for Health and the APPG for Cancer - received more than half of the total funding (£414,921 and £252,557 respectively) provided by pharmaceutical companies. The research also found that patient organisations, which had also received pharmaceutical industry funding, were frequently providing support for APPG's secretariat function (304 payments worth £986,055). This raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interests and the influence pharmaceutical companies are exerting on health policy, potentially at the expenses of less resourced groups. As TI-UK has previously argued transparency in APPGs is necessary but not sufficient, to address concerns about access and influence in UK politics. APPGs are one way in which companies and foreign governments seek to influence parliamentarians but they are not the only one. Reforms of APPGs should be considered alongside the need for a comprehensive lobbying register that includes both in house and consultant lobbying." (Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42331/pdf/) The "Oral evidence: All-Party Parliamentary Groups, HC 672" session in September 2021 mentions our study's findings. See the following excerpt: "You need to focus very much on the activity rather than the type of group. It is important to recognise that there have been concerns about subject groups as well as country groups. The foreign travel issue we have been talking about today is primarily in terms of country groups, but Bath University, for example, published research on pharmaceutical companies' relationships with health APPGs and the access and influence issues around that. The issue is the lobbying and the associated corruption risk; it is not specifically the type of APPG." (Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/3154/pdf/) Engaging with the media Thirdly, we engaged with a number of journalists to increase the non-academic impact of our research. In June 2021 The Guardian published an article based on our findings.(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/25/drug-firms-giving-mps-hidden-funding-research-shows). We have also had discussions with journalists from the BBC and The Observer. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2021 |
| Sector | Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice,Pharmaceuticals and Medical Biotechnology |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Written evidence submission to Parliamentary Inquiry into All-Party Parliamentary Groups |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Contribution to a national consultation/review |
| URL | https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16212/pdf/ |
| Title | A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups |
| Description | This dataset contains all payments from external donors received by health related All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) between 2012-2018. Additional tabs within the dataset look specifically at payments made by pharmaceutical companies, payments made by patient organisations funded by pharmaceutical companies, and payments made by pharmaceutical companies to patient organisations which supported APPGs. We supplemented our data with data on drug company disclosures of payments to patient organisations we previously collected for "Exposing drug industry funding of UK patient organisations" (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1806). The only change we made to the data was extended the yearly range (from 2012-2016 to 2012-2018). We extracted relevant payments (namely payments made to patient organisations which had also supported APPGs) from the data. |
| Type Of Material | Database/Collection of data |
| Year Produced | 2021 |
| Provided To Others? | Yes |
| Impact | This dataset contains the data underpinning a publication exploring the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and All-Party Parliamentary Groups. The data shines a light on payments to political entities in the UK which are hidden in plain sight. These are important conflicts of interest that must be acknowledged. |