THE TIES THAT BIND?
THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF ACCEPTING DRUG INDUSTRY SPONSORSHIP
Report on a HAI-Europe seminar
11 December 1998
Paris
Foreword
Lisa Hayes
Publications & Information Officer, HAI-Europe
At a time when public funding for health care initiatives is steadily declining, many health-related NGOs active at the local, national and international levels are facing a crucial fork in the road. One option is to continue financing their work through public, independent funding sources, well aware that this is no easy task. More and more NGOs must compete for a dwindling pot of money. The other path many NGOs have taken is to accept funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Often this choice is justified as simply acknowledging the changing climate of funding in the `90s. There is a feeling that those who don't "get on board" will be left behind. But is this path so unavoidable and so easily managed into a win-win situation for both industry and health-promoting NGOs?
To date, there has been little debate among NGOs or the broader public about the ramifications of pharmaceutical industry funding of health charities and NGOs. Nor have the implications of these arrangements for an organisation's activities and credibility received much attention.
The purpose of HAI Europe's one-day seminar on drug industry sponsorship was to stimulate some of this thinking and provide a forum for discussion. As a network representing public interests in pharmaceutical policy, the NGOs involved in the HAI network share a policy against taking industry money. HAI's aim was to promote open discussion between NGOs who accept industry funding and others who are opposed to it and to explore viable alternatives to company sponsorship. During the day, participants debated ways to broaden the discussion about sponsorship and to raise awareness about the effects of privatisation. NGO representatives also called for more advocacy at the World Health Organization (WHO) and at national level so that sponsorship is clearly recognised as a form of promotion. They also called on the drug industry to be more transparent about which groups they sponsor.
HAI remains sceptical of the belief that industry and health-promoting NGOs can form real partnerships. The question remains: do drug companies and health NGOs actually share the same interests? Many NGOs receiving industry money may not realise that their funding is part of a public relations strategy or tied to the marketing budget for a specific product or product line. As Barbara Mintzes points out in her presentation, sponsoring well-targeted NGO groups, especially patient groups, allows industry to promote their products to consumers using methods unavailable to drug companies acting on their own. Patient groups, for example, can be used by companies to spread awareness about new drugs at a pre-launch stage; they can reach consumers directly, bypassing doctors; and they can provide a more credible endorsement for a product than could be achieved if it came directly from the company itself. Funding NGOs may also help to soften criticism against a product or company because sponsored groups, concerned about future funding, may feel unable to speak out.
In her presentation, Judith Richter suggested that pharmaceutical companies are mastering public relations skills with increasing finesse. As a result, any NGO that believes a company is contributing funds simply because it's the right thing to do, probably doesn't see how the larger game of winning public approval for corporate actions is being played. In her view, there is a real danger that well-intentioned NGOs can become unwitting collaborators in advancing a company's own agenda. She argues that the so-called "strategic corporate sponsorship" is being used to buy political influence. Such sponsorship presents a danger to democratic, transparent decision-making by allowing companies to gather intelligence about activist groups, to whitewash the image of embattled companies or industries, to manipulate important public debates, and to divide and silence critics.
The meeting also addressed how sponsorship has led to a change in the way decision-making is done at very high levels. During the seminar, Charles Medawar insisted that the process occurs subtly. He said while money doesn't change hands, it does talk--and at the highest levels. He described the tangled web of industry "charity" and policy making that raises questions about how much influence industry has about who drafts policy and which experts get quoted and published.
One of the problems is that industry funding often remains hidden. While some NGOs advertise their link with industry, many keep it under wraps. Often it is difficult for the public to know if an NGO receives industry funding even after reviewing its brochures or attending an open meeting. In some cases, companies take advantage of this large loophole in the regulation of pharmaceutical promotion to use NGOs to promote their products. This leads to confusion and mistrust within the NGO community as organisations search for allies or try to position themselves within a health area.
This seminar report is merely a starting point for NGOs interested in working together to change the current situation of industry sponsorship. The meeting flagged specific concerns about sponsorship and began to draw up recommendations for action. HAI's work on the issue will continue as newspaper headlines continue to tout the latest "partnership" deals promising to improve human health. Whether corporate sponsorship is used as a marketing tool or as part of a larger political agenda, it is time for the members of the NGO community to take a critical look at this growing phenomenon and decide where they stand on the issue and what they want to do to address their concerns about it. For too long, the agenda on sponsorship has been set by the funder--industry. NGOs have a crucial role to play in ensuring that with or without sponsorship, public health is what gets promoted.
Go to seminar report's table of contents