Ghost Management in the Chemical Industry: A Scoping Review of Internal Corporate Documents

Overview

Chemical companies wield immense influence over public discourse, regulation, and even scientific research. To understand how they wield this influence, researchers analyzed scientific literature that examined internal corporate documents. This scoping review reveals the strategies chemical companies use to protect their profits, even when it detriments public health.

Ghost Management Framework

The "ghost management" framework, developed by researchers, categorizes the secretive tactics companies use to influence knowledge production, regulation, and public opinion. The framework includes seven distinct categories:

1. Scientific capture: Influencing knowledge production
2. Professional capture: Influencing healthcare practices
3. Technological capture: Steering technological pathways
4. Regulatory capture: Shaping laws to serve commercial interests
5. Market capture: Establishing market dominance or constraining competition
6. Media capture: Influencing media institutions
7. Civil society capture: Influencing charities, NGOs, and other civil society groups

Methodology

Researchers conducted a scoping review of scientific articles that used internal chemical industry documents. They searched 28 databases, using keywords from case studies of companies like Monsanto, Dow Agrosciences, and others.

After excluding duplicates and irrelevant articles, they analyzed the remaining 60 scientific articles, identifying 18 that met their criteria for in-depth analysis. These articles spanned various chemicals and industries and employed diverse research methods.

Results

The analysis revealed eight distinct ghost management strategies employed by chemical companies, falling within the seven established categories:

1. Scientific capture (16 articles)
2. Regulatory capture (15 articles)
3. Professional capture (7 articles)
4. Civil society capture (6 articles)
5. Media capture (4 articles)
6. Technological capture (3 articles)
7. Market capture (2 articles)
8. Other capture (4 articles)

Ghost Management Strategies

The following are examples of the tactics used by chemical companies in each of the identified ghost management categories:

Scientific Capture: Companies manipulate research and publication processes to favor their interests. Tactics include:

• Suppressing or discrediting unfavorable results
• Promoting research and publications that support their products
• Hiring ghostwriters and influencing journal editors

Regulatory Capture: Companies sway regulations and policies in their favor. Tactics include:

• Lobbying and collaborating with policymakers to influence laws
• Creating and enforcing self-serving safety standards
• "Collaborating" with regulatory agencies to delay or hinder unfavorable regulations

Professional Capture: Companies influence healthcare professionals to promote their products and practices. Tactics include:

• Educating professionals and providing them with incentives
• Enlisting key opinion leaders to endorse their products
• Discrediting or silencing professionals who raise concerns

Civil Society Capture: Companies influence non-profit organizations, consumer groups, and other civil society actors. Tactics include:

• Establishing front groups to promote their interests
• Challenging lawsuits and undermining compensation claims
• Spying on and discrediting organizations that oppose them

Media Capture: Companies shape public opinion through media and communication strategies. Tactics include:

• Advertising directly to consumers
• Influencing news coverage by collaborating with journalists
• Targeting individuals and groups who criticize their products

Other Captures: Companies employ various other tactics to further their interests, such as:

• Challenging legal theories and redefining evidentiary standards
• Maintaining secrecy through confidential business information

Discussion

The analysis revealed a complex web of conflicts of interest and covert manipulation tactics used by chemical companies to influence public policies and scientific knowledge production. These strategies have far-reaching implications for public health, environmental protection, and regulatory structures.

The chemical industry's institutionalized ignorance regime, involving selective ignorance, forbidden knowledge, and nescience, obscures risks and shields companies from accountability.

Limitations

The scoping review focused on scientific literature and internal corporate documents, which may not fully capture all ghost management strategies employed by chemical companies. It also relied primarily on English-language sources. Future research should expand to include a broader range of sources and delve deeper into the specific tactics used by chemical companies to influence public opinion and policy.

Implications

This study offers valuable insights for policymakers, regulators, scientists, and the public. It highlights the crucial need for greater transparency, stricter oversight, and robust scientific research to counteract the influence of ghost management strategies on public discourse and decision-making. By promoting ethical business practices, empowering independent research, and engaging the public in informed debate, we can foster a more equitable and evidence-based approach to chemical product regulation.