Does your bank support gambling? We need to know who sponsors harmful industry associations
We know that alcohol, gambling, tobacco and ultra-processed food products can harm health. But how much do we know about the industry associations representing their interests? In today’s piece, VicHealth (@VicHealth) Research Fellow Jennifer Lacy-Nichols (@JLacyNichols), MPH student Naomi Carr and MPH student Cara Platts (all of the University of Melbourne) discuss some of their research on harmful industry associations.
Who is holding back policy change?
In Australia, most companies don’t disclose if they sponsor an industry association representing alcohol, gambling, tobacco and/or ultra-processed food interests.
It’s not considered a relationship that will boost their reputation.
Using industry associations allows companies to shield their reputations from controversial issues. It is likely, therefore, that some companies use these organisations to engage in controversial political strategies while camouflaging their influence. This is sometimes called ‘astroturfing’ – when businesses or other vested interests secretly fund a campaign that looks like authentic grassroot advocacy.
Harmful industries rack up the profits while disguising political activities that work against community health and wellbeing. Image by Nattanan Kanchanaprat from Pixabay.
International research has shown that industry associations often take a more oppositional and aggressive policy position than their corporate members. The same is true in Australia, with a 2020 report on the fossil fuel sector finding that the most influential industry associations have an “overwhelmingly negative impact” on climate change policy.
In Australia, there is little transparency about the extent and nature of corporate political activity. Almost a quarter of political donations are described as ‘dark’ money, meaning we don’t know who gave it or why. Lobbyist registers exclude “in-house” lobbyists directly employed by companies. Not-for-profit organisations are likewise excluded from registers. Yet many not-for-profits represent business interests, including industry associations, peak bodies and corporate charities, like the Australian Food and Grocery Council and Drinkwise (representing food and alcohol industry interests, respectively).
These exclusions and loopholes mean that we don’t know which companies are trying to influence politics, or when, or how. While this influence is usually legal, it is not always fair or ethical.
Monitoring corporate political activity
Jenn’s current research program focuses on strategies to systematically monitor corporate political activity. One of her projects is about mapping the relationships between actors in the alcohol, gambling, tobacco and ultra-processed food (UPF) sectors. Naomi and Cara are working with Jenn to map the corporate sponsors, members and partners of industry associations. While some associations are open about their membership, many are not. Few are fully transparent about the amount of funding received from individual member companies.
The projects asked two straightforward questions:
1. Who are the members of the industry associations representing alcohol, gambling, ultra-processed food (UPF) and tobacco industry interests?
2. Do those members openly declare their membership to that association?
Below, we present some preliminary findings and reflections from the projects.
1. Many associations do not disclose their members
Just over half of the associations we analysed disclosed their members – 33 of 63 associations linked with tobacco and UPF industries, and 105 of 182 associations linked with the alcohol and gambling sectors.
2. Association membership is diverse
While many association members were themselves part of the alcohol, gambling, tobacco and/or UPF industries, more than half of all members came from other sectors, including banking, media, retail, superannuation and government.
Many companies are members of multiple associations. Of the UPF and tobacco industry associations we analysed, Nestlé was a member of the most associations (11), followed by Coca-Cola and Simplot (both 10). For the alcohol and gambling industry, Carlton & United Breweries was a member of the most associations (21), followed by Treasury Wine Estates (20) and Diageo (19).
In practice, this means that many associations and companies are connected indirectly through their membership in industry associations. The below figure was made using GEPHI software to show the networks amongst alcohol and gambling industry association members. The dots around the outside with no connections are the associations that did not disclose their membership. Association and member sectors are indicated by colour: pink = gambling, blue = alcohol, purple = both, grey = other.
Figure 1: Alcohol and gambling industry association members. Pink = gambling, blue = alcohol, purple = both, grey = other. Unconnected dots = associations that did not disclose their membership.
1. Few members disclosed their membership
For UPF and tobacco associations, of the 2077 member-association relationships, only 161 (7.75%) were disclosed by members. The highest number of disclosures was for Food South Australia (22 members, 15%), while the highest percent of disclosures was for Legalise Vaping Australia (10 members, 77%).
In the below image, the black lines indicate the relationships that are disclosed by the members.
Figure 2: Disclosed ultra-processed foods (UPF) and tobacco associations.
We haven’t yet finished this analysis for the 1454 members, sponsors and partners affiliated with the gambling and alcohol associations.
Some reflections on the research process and ways forward
We took an inclusive approach to the associations we included in our study. This means we included organisations that did not focus exclusively on one of the four sectors (such as the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia). These groups represent many sectors in addition to alcohol, gambling, tobacco and UPF. More research is needed to evaluate whether, and to what extent, harmful industry sectors shape the agendas and political activities of these groups.
It's fairly time-consuming to identify each member, and also whether they disclose their membership or sponsorship of an association. In many cases, associations list the same company by slightly different names, making it slow to review all members and match the same ones together. This challenge exists for other datasets relevant to monitoring corporate political activity, such as lobbyist registers, ministerial diaries and political donations. Some of Jenn’s other projects are working on addressing this challenge and making it easier to monitor corporate political activity.
Poor transparency is a risk for public health
Transparency is important, but it is not a panacea. Transparency makes it much easier to follow the money in politics and hold lawmakers to account for their decisions. To truly shift the balance away from vested interests requires changes to our political and economic systems. This requires political will.
Our hope is that these research projects can help to shine a light on the nature and extent of corporate political activity in Australia, and that this can support accountability and advocacy for change.
Dr Jenn Lacy-Nichols currently holds a VicHealth Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. Naomi Carr and Cara Platts are Master of Public Health Students at the University of Melbourne. Their research is integral to understanding and tracking the impacts of the Commercial Determinants of Health. Their views may not reflect the position of VicHealth.