Assessing the health impact of transnational corporations: a case study on McDonald's Australia.

BACKGROUND: The practices of transnational corporations affect population health through production methods, shaping social determinants of health, or influencing the regulatory structures governing their activities. There has been limited research on community exposures to TNC policies and practices. Our pilot research used McDonald's Australia to test methods for assessing the health impacts of one TNC within Australia. METHODS: We adapted existing Health Impact Assessment methods to assess McDonald's activities. Data identifying potential impacts were sourced through document analysis, including McDonald's corporate literature; media analysis and semi-structured interviews. We commissioned a spatial and socioeconomic analysis of McDonald's restaurants in Australia through Geographic Information System technology. The data was mapped against a corporate health impact assessment framework which included McDonald's Australia's political and business practices; products and marketing; workforce, social, environmental and economic conditions; and consumers' health related behaviours. RESULTS: We identified both positive and detrimental aspects of McDonald's Australian operations across the scope of the CHIA framework. We found that McDonald's outlets were slightly more likely to be located in areas of lower socioeconomic status. McDonald's workplace conditions were found to be more favourable than those in many other countries which reflects compliance with Australian employment regulations. The breadth of findings revealed the need for governments to strengthen regulatory mechanisms that are conducive to health; the opportunity for McDonald's to augment their corporate social responsibility initiatives and bolster reputational endorsement; and civil society actors to inform their advocacy towards health and equity outcomes from TNC operations. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that undertaking a corporate health impact assessment is possible, with the different methods revealing sufficient information to realise that strong regulatory frameworks are need to help to avoid or to mediate negative health impacts.

Intersectoral action on SDH and equity in Australian health policy.

Intersectoral action between public agencies across policy sectors, and between levels of government, is seen as essential for effective action by governments to address social determinants of health (SDH) and to reduce health inequities. The health sector has been identified as having a crucial stewardship role, to engage other policy sectors in action to address the impacts of their policies on health. This article reports on research to investigate intersectoral action on SDH and health inequities in Australian health policy. We gathered and individually analysed 266 policy documents, being all of the published, strategic health policies of the national Australian government and eight State/Territory governments, current at the time of sampling in late 2012-early 2013. Our analysis showed that strategies for intersectoral action were common in Australian health policy, but predominantly concerned with extending access to individualized medical or behavioural interventions to client groups in other policy sectors. Where intersectoral strategies did propose action on SDH (other than access to health-care), they were mostly limited to addressing proximal factors, rather than policy settings affecting the distribution of socioeconomic resources. There was little evidence of engagement between the health sector and those policy sectors most able to influence systemic socioeconomic inequalities in Australia.

Assessing the health impact of transnational corporations: its importance and a framework.

BACKGROUND: The adverse health and equity impacts of transnational corporations' (TNCs) practices have become central public health concerns as TNCs increasingly dominate global trade and investment and shape national economies. Despite this, methodologies have been lacking with which to study the health equity impacts of individual corporations and thus to inform actions to mitigate or reverse negative and increase positive impacts. METHODS: This paper reports on a framework designed to conduct corporate health impact assessment (CHIA), developed at a meeting held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center in May 2015. RESULTS: On the basis of the deliberations at the meeting it was recommended that the CHIA should be based on ex post assessment and follow the standard HIA steps of screening, scoping, identification, assessment, decision-making and recommendations. A framework to conduct the CHIA was developed and designed to be applied to a TNC's practices internationally, and within countries to enable comparison of practices and health impacts in different settings. The meeting participants proposed that impacts should be assessed according to the TNC's global and national operating context; its organisational structure, political and business practices (including the type, distribution and marketing of its products); and workforce and working conditions, social factors, the environment, consumption patterns, and economic conditions within countries. CONCLUSION: We anticipate that the results of the CHIA will be used by civil society for capacity building and advocacy purposes, by governments to inform regulatory decision-making, and by TNCs to lessen their negative health impacts on health and fulfil commitments made to corporate social responsibility.

Service providers' views of community participation at six Australian primary healthcare services: scope for empowerment and challenges to implementation.

Community participation is a key principle of comprehensive primary health care (PHC). There is little literature on how community participation is implemented at Australian PHC services. As part of a wider study conducted in partnership with five South Australian PHC services, and one Aboriginal community controlled health service in the Northern Territory, 68 staff, manager, regional health executives, and departmental funders were interviewed about community participation, perceived benefits, and factors that influenced implementation. Additional data were collected through analysis of policy documents, service reports on activity, and a web-based survey completed by 130 staff. A variety of community participation strategies was reported, ranging from consultation and participation as a means to improve service quality and acceptability, to substantive and structural participation strategies with an emphasis on empowerment. The Aboriginal community controlled health service in our study reported the most comprehensive community participation. Respondents from all services were positive about the benefits of participation but reported that efforts to involve service users had to compete with a centrally directed model of care emphasising individual treatment services, particularly at state-managed services. More empowering substantive and structural participation strategies were less common than consultation or participation used to achieve prescribed goals. The most commonly reported barriers to community participation were budget and lack of flexibility in service delivery. The current central control of the state-managed services needs to be replaced with more local management decision making if empowering community participation is to be strengthened and embedded more effectively in the culture of services.

The potential for multi-disciplinary primary health care services to take action on the social determinants of health: actions and constraints.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on the Social Determinants of Health and the World Health Organization have called for action to address the social determinants of health. This paper considers the extent to which primary health care services in Australia are able to respond to this call. We report on interview data from an empirical study of primary health care centres in Adelaide and Alice Springs, Australia. METHODS: Sixty-eight interviews were held with staff and managers at six case study primary health care services, regional health executives, and departmental funders to explore how their work responded to the social determinants of health and the dilemmas in doing so. The six case study sites included an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation, a sexual health non-government organisation, and four services funded and managed by the South Australian government. RESULTS: While respondents varied in the extent to which they exhibited an understanding of social determinants most were reflexive about the constraints on their ability to take action. Services' responses to social determinants included delivering services in a way that takes account of the limitations individuals face from their life circumstances, and physical spaces in the primary health care services being designed to do more than simply deliver services to individuals. The services also undertake advocacy for policies that create healthier communities but note barriers to them doing this work. Our findings suggest that primary health care workers are required to transverse "dilemmatic space" in their work. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of systematic supportive policy, frameworks and structure means that it is hard for PHC services to act on the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health's recommendations. Our study does, however, provide evidence of the potential for PHC services to be more responsive to social determinants given more support and by building alliances with communities and social movements. Further research on the value of community control of PHC services and the types of policy, resource and managerial environments that support action on social determinants is warranted by this study's findings.

Dear health minister: tend the garden but make sure you fence the crocodiles.

This paper offers lessons to in-coming health ministers on how they can act to reduce inequities and take action on social determinants. It draws on an interview study of twenty former Australian State, Territory and Federal health ministers about the extent to which they were able to do these things during their tenure. In order to take effective health equity action the health ministers advised: ensure evidence is used to develop a strong party policy platform for health equity; install policy entrepreneurs for health equity and social determinants in the health ministry; build popular constituencies through processes of deliberative democracy; establish context appropriate cross-department mechanisms to co-ordinate action on social determinants; and be elected in the context of a political party which values social justice and redistribution.

"Never mind the logic, give me the numbers": former Australian health ministers' perspectives on the social determinants of health.

The articulation of strong evidence and moral arguments about the importance of social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity has not led to commensurate action to address them. Policy windows open when, simultaneously, an issue is recognised as a problem, policy formulation and refinement happens and the political will for action is present. We report on qualitative interviews with 20 former Australian Federal, State or Territory health ministers conducted between September 2011 and January 2012 concerning their views about how and why the windows of policy opportunity on the SDH did or did not open during their tenure. Almost all ex-health ministers were aware of the existence of health inequalities and SDH but their complexity meant that this awareness rarely crystalised into a clear problem other than as a focus on high needs groups, especially Aboriginal people. Formulation of policies about SDH was assisted by cross-portfolio structures, policy entrepreneurs, and evidence from reviews and reports. It was hindered by the complexity of SDH policy, the dominance of medical power and paradigms and the weakness of the policy community advocating for SDH. The political stream was enabling when the general ideological climate was supportive of redistributive policies, the health care sector was not perceived to be in crisis, there was support for action from the head of government and cabinet colleagues, and no opposition from powerful lobby groups. There have been instances of Australian health policy which addressed the SDH over the past twenty five years but they are rare and the windows of opportunity that made them possible did not stay open for long.