本文使用特定案例研究探讨了行业对公共卫生的影响,并应用基于11项原则的既定道德框架来探索健康的商业决定因素(CDoH)。它展示了这些原则在评估行业战略和实践的道德完整性及其对公共卫生的影响方面的应用。
使用11个先验,演绎,道德原则作为准则,本文对可口可乐代表之间通过美国知情权(USRTK)的《信息自由法》(FOIA)公开提供的19个电子邮件链和随附文件进行了深入分析,游说者,学者,和国际生命科学研究所(ILSI),由可口可乐前高管创立。
文件中最经常违反的三项原则是消费者主权(n=22),循证行动(n=21),和透明度(n=20)。同样,在文档中最常见的代码是透明度(19个文档中的13个),消费者主权(19份文件中的13份),证据通知行动(19份文件中有9份),以及社会正义与公平(19份文件中有9份)。所有十一条原则在整个文件中至少应用了四次;但是,响应性(z=12),道德责任(z=16),和整体论(z=30)与数据集的相关性最小。
这个可口可乐的案例研究证明了这个道德框架在审查企业行为者在推广对人体健康有害的产品方面的作用。它表明,尽管这些产品对公共卫生产生负面影响,但该行业有时在推广其产品的各种策略和实践中道德诚信低下。
This paper explores industry influence on public health using a specific case study and applies an established ethical framework based on eleven principles to explore Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH). It demonstrates an application of these principles to evaluate the ethical integrity of industry strategies and practices and their impacts on public health.
Using eleven a priori, deductive, ethical principles as codes, this paper conducted an in-depth analysis of 19 e-mail chains and accompanying documents made publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) sent between Coca-Cola representatives, lobbyists, academics, and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), founded by former Coca-Cola executives.
The three principles violated most frequently amongst the documents were consumer sovereignty (n = 22), evidence-informed actions (n = 21), and transparency (n = 20). Similarly, codes that featured most regularly across documents were transparency (13 out of 19 documents), consumer sovereignty (13 out of 19 documents), evidence-informed actions (9 out of 19 documents), and social justice and equity (9 out of 19 documents). All eleven principles were applied at least four times throughout the documents; however, responsiveness (z = 12), moral responsibility (z = 16), and holism (z = 30) were the least relevant to the data set.
This case study of Coca-Cola demonstrates the usefulness of this ethics framework in reviewing actions of corporate actors in the promotion of products that are harmful to human health. It shows that the industry at times has low ethical integrity in their various strategies and practices to promote their products despite the negative impacts of these products on public health.