Shifting blame/selling health: corporate social responsibility in the age of obesity

Abstract

This paper examines how and why health has become a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy for the global food and drink industry (FDI) in the context of current governmental and public calls to address mounting obesity rates. It argues that, despite the current prominence of health within CSR, there has not been a reciprocal interest by those adopting sociological approaches to the study of health and illness in the implications of this strategic uptake of health or in the viability and legitimacy of the state's own public health role. This omission is addressed through an empirical exploration of three contentions: first, that health and wellbeing may be used to secure brand value and consumer goodwill at a time when mounting obesity rates demand new levels of accountability from the FDI. Secondly, that the food industry, through CSR, may promote a narrow epidemiological understanding of obesity, shifting blame from 'foods' to 'diet' and from 'diet' to 'sedentarism'. Thirdly, that CSR reporting and its associated practices have enabled the food industry to assume some responsibility for obesity prevention, thereby problematising the state's role in addressing its own 'public health' crisis.

Consumer Rights Today: Are They in Business or Out of Business?

“…In the broader sense, corporate social responsibility implies that organizations are part of a larger society, thus accountable to that society for their actions (Kerin et al, 2009;Churchill and Peter, 1995). For example, a study showed that health has become a CSR strategy for the global food and beverage industry in the context of government concern to address increasing obesity rates (Herrick, 2009). Clearly, an organization is responsible to the whole society, including all stakeholders.…”

Are Big Food’s corporate social responsibility strategies valuable to communities? A qualitative study with parents and children

“…The literature has previously reported on both Big Food's publicised motivations for undertaking CSR activities (12,13,17) and public health critiques of these strategies (14,26) , but to a much lesser extent on the public perception of these strategies (22,23) . Given that companies argue the social good of CSR activities, and their critics associate them with harm, it is important to gain a better understanding of how the public themselves perceive the strategies and impacts.…”

“…Preliminary studies in the critical public health literature also show that Big Food is using CSR to divert public attention away from the negative health effects of its products; avoid government regulation; and shift blame from corporations to consumers (12,13,16,17) . Studies from the critical public health literature have reported that companies use these CSR strategies to build brand image and preferences in an attempt to cultivate a climate in which the consumption of their products is viewed as a natural activity.…”

“…Companies can achieve this by implementing strategies that either provide something of value to a particular group (e.g. charitable donations) or emulate the moral values of a group (12,14,17) . Therefore, it could be argued that these strategies aim to serve the bottom line of corporations, despite their stated intentions to address the impacts of their products.…”

“…packaging initiatives) (14,16) . These strategies are considered genuine because they aim to improve existing corporate practices, enhance the nutritional quality of products to benefit consumer health, increase the transparency of nutrition information and improve supply chain practices (14,17) . The second group are those we consider to be more 'questionable' CSR strategies.…”