The ethics of industry sponsorship of charities

Industry sponsorship of charitable causes is increasingly promoted and practised across the corporate sector in Australia and overseas. But should such “corporate social responsibility” be limited in certain circumstances? Apart from tobacco companies, there are currently very few restrictions on which industries are allowed to support which charities. But there is a need to consider whether there should be more restrictions. For instance, large for-profit corporations — whose products may actually damage the health of children and families — sponsor the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne and other children’s hospitals in Australia.1 Little discussion or questioning has occurred in relation to the ethics of such sponsorship.

Charities, which often depend on donations from the corporate sector to operate, undertake important work that benefits the community. To question their sources of donations is to risk criticism for jeopardising community health services. But is more harm than good being done to the health of our society by allowing such sponsorship to promote companies whose products damage children and families?

In a recently published book, I contend that corporate sponsorship of charities can damage public health.2 Some instances of corporate social responsibility, rather than being just altruistic philanthropy, are also a form of indirect advertising and an attempt to legitimise or normalise unhealthy products. For example, Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital allows fast-food chains and the gambling industry to align their products with a children’s charity.1 For ethical reasons, we should prevent such unhealthy alliances — that is, partnerships that promote unhealthy products to children and legitimise companies whose products have been associated with ill health. Research into the effects of corporate social responsibility has demonstrated such promotion and legitimisation.3,4 Ultimately, such alliances can help the sponsors acquire high-level community support that protects their businesses from regulation and proper scrutiny. The gambling industry has successfully protected itself in this way, by arguing that regulation would limit its support of children’s sporting groups.

In the context of tackling non-communicable diseases, industry involvement is emerging as a significant barrier to strategies that promote public health initiatives such as the taxation of unhealthy products. International experts on non-communicable diseases have expressed two main concerns: industry is becoming increasingly powerful in influencing health and health policy, and industry promotion of unhealthy products seems to be contributing to the epidemic of non-communicable diseases.

It is time for a more nuanced and critical approach to engagement with industry, whether it be big tobacco, big pharma, big gaming or big fast food.

In Canada, a Burger King franchise was ousted from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. This resulted from significant pressure from doctors and health workers.5 Board members of similar institutions, who oversee decisions on funding sources, should also examine corporate activities with hospital institutions. Although the sine qua non for such partnerships is money, we should, as health professionals, be wary of allowing money to legitimise ethically questionable practices or contribute to damaging health.

Would the board of a health charity accept funds from tobacco companies, even if they could not display their advertising? Similarly, is it ethical for hospitals and charities to accept support from gambling companies and the fast-food industry? After all, fast food contributes to an epidemic that damages more 13-year-olds than does smoking. Problem gambling has a greater direct impact on families than smoking does. Are they really that different from tobacco companies?

At the very least, we should advocate that when an institution accepts money from a company whose products are associated with ill health, the company should be prevented from displaying signage or promoting itself in any way that associates it with the institution (eg, using the institution’s name on its products, promotional materials or websites). If a corporate donor is not using a health institution to promote and advertise its industry and brand, it will have very few objections to this type of measure. Alternatively, if companies are in the game for gain — and are in effect using ill children to promote unhealthy brands and products — then we should ask whether they should be in the game at all.

If such alliances are unavoidable — and I believe they are avoidable — public health practitioners should independently raise awareness of such potentially unethical sponsorship. I encourage people to expose, or at least question, apparent unhealthy alliances.

Questions concerning corporate social responsibility are considerably more complicated than they may at first seem. Corporate donations to charities deserve further scrutiny and transparency than there has been in the past.