The Experts below are selected from a list of 1023 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David Stuckler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Martin Mckee, Gary Ruskin, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
-
coca cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
-
Coca-Cola - a model of transparency in research partnerships? A network analysis of Coca-Cola's research funding (2008-2016).
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (
Martin Mckee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Martin Mckee, Gary Ruskin, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
-
coca cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
-
Coca-Cola - a model of transparency in research partnerships? A network analysis of Coca-Cola's research funding (2008-2016).
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (
Paulo Serodio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coca cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
-
Coca-Cola - a model of transparency in research partnerships? A network analysis of Coca-Cola's research funding (2008-2016).
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (
Sarah Steele - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Martin Mckee, Gary Ruskin, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
S Bernhut - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Corporate Social Responsibility
Ivey Business Journal, 2002Co-Authors: S BernhutAbstract:Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable Development (SD) are among the most important concepts applied and/or promoted by companies through specific programmes. Whether they are part of the Company's PR strategy or an element of the Company's operational system, CSR and SD programmes are becoming a constant part of corporate actions. Considered by some analysts as controversial concepts, studies regarding CSR and SD have increased especially over the last two decades and actions related to them have become both shield and weapon for companies, organizations and governments, depending on the purpose they are used for. The following article makes a short presentation of the CSR and SD concepts, the relationship between them and benefits they generate, and ends with the case study of the eKOsystem programme launched by The Coca-Cola Company -a relevant example of programmes designed to promote and apply both CSR and SD concepts.