“The tobacco and ultra-processed food industries exemplify the detrimental effects of corporate influence on public health. For decades, tobacco companies lobbied aggressively against health regulations, contributing to millions of preventable deaths worldwide. Despite still causing more than 8 million tobacco-related deaths annually, the tobacco industry now claims through its public-relations campaigns and selective science that it focuses on “harm reduction”, particularly by selling new products such as e-cigarettes. These tactics allow the industry to argue that it deserves a seat at the policy table, all while shifting to new types of addictive and harmful products, targeting youth, and continuing to oppose tobacco control. Similarly, the ultra-processed food industry’s lobbying efforts have had a role in weakening regulations globally to reduce the sugar, salt, and fat content in ultra-processed foods. The 30 food and beverage companies that spent the most on lobbying decision makers in 2024 collectively spent nearly US$27 million that year.
There is a strong case for calling out some corporate actions as corruption. The first is the moral argument. Even if legal, actions that abuse power for commercial gain and harm human and planetary heath are wrong and should be condemned to signal their unacceptability. Second, there is a political argument because such actions lead politicians to serve corporations rather than their constituents, undermining trust in political systems. The third is the legal argument. Reframing certain actions as corrupt could make it easier to apply legal provisions such as bribery laws or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Bribery Convention.
The key issue is which corporate practices should be deemed corrupt. The Transparency International definition is widely endorsed, so a starting point is to determine which of the powers corporations are entrusted with are exploited for private gain. This includes capture of regulatory agencies, exploitation of laws on defamation to suppress criticism, and the application of intellectual property rights to suppress competition from, for example, generic medicines. [..]
State capture by corporate interests can be especially damaging to health. [..] In the USA, the gun industry has exerted considerable influence on USA policy makers through the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups, to block stricter gun control measures. This corporate influence has ensured that gun laws in the USA remain weak, contributing to the highest rate of firearm deaths among high-income countries, accounting for more than 45 000 deaths in 2020. In the current policy environment in the USA, in which enforcement of some anti-corruption laws has been halted and accountability safeguards are being undermined, it seems likely that state capture by corporate interests at the expense of the public good will be further entrenched. In early 2025 under the new administration of US President Donald Trump, US Attorney General Pam Bondi moved to suspend enforcement of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for 6 months. This law prohibits US businesses from bribing foreign officials to secure overseas deals and its suspension would contribute to greater corruption globally.
As the previous example shows, corporate interests can shape global agendas, including in areas such as climate change, environmental degradation, and conflicts over minerals, all posing existential threats to humanity. For instance, multinational oil and gas companies have through their lobbying efforts pushed back against regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and influenced international climate policies. Similarly, large agricultural corporations have contributed to significant deforestation in tropical regions, exacerbating environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. Transnational mining companies exploiting rare minerals used in technologies such as smartphones and electric vehicles have played a part in fuelling conflicts and human rights abuses in regions such as DR Congo, where control over mineral-rich areas has led to violent clashes between armed groups and corporate interests. Moving beyond euphemisms such as unethical business practices and explicitly calling out corruption would allow society to play a more active part in safeguarding population and planetary health, addressing the structural conditions that enable corporate actors to behave as they do. Those in public health must advocate for greater scrutiny and accountability of corporate practices harming public health, broadening the definition of corruption to hold companies accountable, and collaborating with journalists and civil society to expose corporate malfeasance.”
Full article, H Walls, M McKee and D Balabanova, The Lancet, 2025.3.25