CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance: mapping and analysing the global corporate influence network of the transnational ultra-processed food industry

Open access
Slater, Scott, Lawrence, Mark, Wood, Benjamin, Serodio, Paulo, Baker, Phillip·2024·Globalization and Health
DOI 10.1186/s12992-024-01020-4PMC PMC10882744

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A major challenge to transforming food systems to promote human health and sustainable development is the global rise in the manufacture and consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). A key driver of this dietary transition is the globalization of UPF corporations, and their organized corporate political activity (CPA) intended to counter opposition and block government regulation. UPF industry CPA and the corporate interest groups who lobby on their behalf have been well described at the national level, however, at the global level, this network has not been systematically characterized. This study aims to map, analyse, and describe this network, and discuss the implications for global food policy action on UPFs, global food governance (GFG), and food systems transformation. METHODS: We conducted a network analysis of the declared interest group memberships of the world's leading UPF corporations, extracted from web sources, company reports, and relevant academic and grey literature. Data on the characteristics of these interest groups were further extracted for analysis, including year founded, level, type, and headquarter location. RESULTS: We identified 268 interest groups affiliated with the UPF industry. The UPF manufacturers Nestlé (n = 171), The Coca-Cola Company (n = 147), Unilever (n = 142), PepsiCo (n = 138), and Danone (n = 113) had the greatest number of memberships, indicating strong centrality in coordinating the network. We found that this network operates at all levels, yet key actors now predominantly coordinate globally through multistakeholder channels in GFG. The most common interest group types were sustainability/corporate social responsibility/multistakeholder initiatives, followed by branding and advertising, and food manufacturing and retail. Most corporate interest groups are headquartered where they can access powerful government and GFG decision-makers, nearly one-third in Washington DC and Brussels, and the rest in capital cities of major national markets for UPFs. CONCLUSIONS: The UPF industry, and especially its leading corporations, coordinate a global network of interest groups spanning multiple levels, jurisdictions, and governance spaces. This represents a major structural feature of global food and health governance systems, which arguably poses major challenges for actions to attenuate the harms of UPFs, and to realising of healthy and sustainable food systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12992-024-01020-4

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the UPF sector, Slater and colleagues mapped a loose, multi-level, multi-jurisdictional network of over 250 corporate interest groups that engage in lobbying and other political activities.

    “For example, in the UPF sector, Slater and colleagues mapped a loose, multi-level, multi-jurisdictional network of over 250 corporate interest groups that engage in lobbying and other political activities (Slater et al. 2024).”

    From Corporate concentration and power matter for agency in food systems (2025) · cites this paper as Slater et al. 2024

  • There is a growing literature investigating the linkages between the activities of the dominant UPF firms and public health outcomes.

    “For example, there is a growing literature investigating the linkages between the activities of the dominant UPF firms and public health outcomes (Wood et al. 2023; Slater et al. 2024; Moodie et al. 2021).”

    From Corporate concentration and power matter for agency in food systems (2025) · cites this paper as Slater et al. 2024

  • Some of the largest companies in the UPF industry, including Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever, PepsiCo, Danone, Marz, and Mondelez, participate in these interest groups.

    “Some of the largest companies in the UPF industry, including Nestl ´ e, Coca-Cola, Unilever, PepsiCo, Danone, Marz, and Mondelez, participate in these interest groups.”

    From Corporate concentration and power matter for agency in food systems (2025) · cites this paper as Slater et al. 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [49]Clapp J. The Rise of Mega-companies in the Global Food System: Implications for Economic and Environmental Sustainability. Alberta Institute of Agrologists 15th Annual General Meeting and Conference; Alberta2019.
  2. [85]Clapp J Food. Cambridge 2012 UK; Malden, MA Polity

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Slater, S., Lawrence, M., Wood, B., Serodio, P., & Baker, P.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Slater, Scott
ORCID
Venue
Globalization and Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-02-22
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1744-8603 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12992-024-01020-4
PMC
PMC10882744
OpenAlex
W4392044336
Cited by
42
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11
FWCI
21.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Globalization and Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government (FT220100690)
  • Deakin University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
ultra-processed foods, corporate political activity, global food governance, food system transformation, corporate lobbying, multi-stakeholder initiatives, corporate social responsibility, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever, PepsiCo, Danone, food regulation
MeSH terms
Food, Processed, Food, Humans, Industry, Politics, Public Opinion, Food Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review