Criteria

In seeking scientific articles or book chapters that use internal corporate documents to reveal aspects of chemical companies’ operations and covert ghost management strategies, there were three main criteria for inclusion in our study: peer-reviewed status, explicit citation of internal company documents as the primary data source, and exploration of corporate captures within chemical companies.

We adhere to the internal document definition articulated by Gagnon and Dong [17], characterizing them as corporate/industry documents normally not accessible to the public, typically obtainable through court orders, leaks, or whistleblowers. Documents initially intended for public access, like those on corporate websites, were excluded. This broad definition was intentionally chosen to encompass various analyses related to chemical ghost management utilizing internal corporate/industry documents. Additionally, selected articles needed to examine one of the eight established ghost management strategies outlined in our theoretical framework or any new strategies employed by chemical companies.

Extracting scientific articles

In our search for scientific literature incorporating internal chemical corporate documents, we initially employed broad keywords across 28 databases (see S1 Appendix and Fig 1). We also used keywords from case studies of companies like Monsanto, Dow Agrosciences, Adama, Ciba-Geigy, Sandoz, Astra, ICI, Bayer, Schering, Hoechst, Rhone Poulenc, Rohms & Haas, Eli-Lilly, Dow Chemical, DuPont, BASF, ACC/American Home Products, American Home Products, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, AgrEvo, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Aventis CropScience, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, ChemChina, Corteva, and BASF, where internal corporate documents were publicly available through litigations.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Flow chart of scoping review process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310116.g001

We extracted 351 academic papers with our search keywords and reviewed their titles, abstracts, and keywords to eliminate duplicates, excluding 308 articles that did not meet our screening criteria. We then performed detailed coding and screening on the remaining 43 articles. During this process, we identified 17 additional scientific articles using the snowball sampling method [20] to complement our search efforts. Subsequently, we coded 60 scientific articles to identify ghost management strategies employed by chemical companies.

Coding

To conduct a comparative analysis with Gagnon and Dong’s pharmaceutical scoping review in 2022 [17], we employed the identical excel pivot table template available on the Dataverse (https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/Ghost management). Our workbook has been made accessible on Dataverse to facilitate public access and enable future researchers to seamlessly apply the same analytical framework to their respective case studies (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/EOIOAU). Specifically, one team member manually entered coding information for 18 articles published between 2001 and 2024 [1, 21–37].

The workbook comprises 12 sheets, including a summary page with the corporate capture outline, explanations for eight ghost management captures based on our theoretical framework, a summary of case studies, sources for data collection, and an overview of research methodology. In the summary sheet, we denote the presence of each capture with Y or N. Additional concerns identified during separate coding by another researcher are documented in the MAG comments.

One team member initiated the scoping review search on December 19, 2022. To validate the results and capture new publications, another researcher conducted a matching scoping review search on May 13, 2024. All scientific articles extracted were published prior to May 13, 2024. Subsequently, one researcher coded all articles between February 1, 2023, and May 20, 2024, while another researcher conducted a separate coding on May 30, 2024. The two researchers engaged in discussions to resolve divergent coding decisions.

Patient and public involvement

This study excluded patient inclusion or participation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was unnecessary as the study did not entail the involvement of human participants or include research on animals.

Case studies

Our curated scoping review includes articles focused on Monsanto, with seven discussing glyphosate-based herbicides, one on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and another on neonicotinoids [26–28, 33, 35, 36, 38]. Additionally, there are four articles on asbestos [21–24], three on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or Teflon [30, 31, 36], one on greenwashing [22], one analyzing McKinsey’s role in agribusiness transformation [32], one on GMO salmon [34], one on argi-chemical [29], and another shedding light on collaborative efforts between the United States and Dow to hinder European regulatory initiatives [25].

Methods used

In contrast to the pharmaceutical industry scoping review, the examination of the chemical industry reveals a broader range of research methods. Notably, historical analysis, interviews, and archival research stand out as noteworthy methodologies, providing valuable supplements to theoretical frameworks. Richter et al’s literature review [30, 31] holds particular significance. All 18 papers employed qualitative analysis [1, 21–37]. Five articles exclusively utilized qualitative analysis, while the remaining 13 employed multiple methods, including content analysis [1, 25, 27–29, 32–37], historical analysis [25, 29], interview [30, 31], archival research [30, 31], and quantitative methods [32].

Sources for internal industry documents

Among 18 scientific articles [1, 21–37], 15 used internal chemical corporate documents initially obtained via litigation [1, 21–28, 31–33, 35–37]. In contrast to pharmaceutical scoping reviews, our analysis indicates a trend of studies using leaked memos as their primary investigative source. Seven papers [23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36] employed leaked memos to examine chemical corporate captures, including personal communications, meeting minutes and speech transcripts.

15 papers used multiple sources in their investigations [1, 21–28, 31–33, 35–37]. Eight incorporated archival documents [1, 21, 27, 28, 28, 31–33], three examined corporate public documents like financial records and marketing materials [29, 34], while two relied on other academic literature as secondary sources [23, 32, 37]. One paper referenced policy documents [25], and another included interviews [31]. Krimsky and Gillam augmented their research with contributions from investigative journalists and legal professionals [1], suggesting alternative avenues for valuable insights beyond legal proceedings [38]. All resources and archival sites are documented in S3 Appendix for easy access in future research. We have compiled these channels for accessing internal documents from chemical companies to facilitate and encourage further research endeavors. Notably, ToxicDocs has aggregated a substantial collection of internal documents from various chemical companies. Three of our analyzed published articles have drawn directly from the internal documents available in toxicdots.org [27, 28, 38].

Ghost management strategies in chemical industry

After analyzing 18 articles [1, 21–37], we identified eight distinct ghost management strategies employed by chemical companies to shape public perception. These strategies involve diverse methodologies aimed at influencing experts, manipulating regulatory frameworks, engaging with policymakers, and molding media and cultural narratives in alignment with corporate interests.

Table 1 summarizes the identified ghost management strategies from the analysis of these articles [1, 21–37]. The subsequent sections provide a comprehensive exploration of each strategy, offering specific examples and insights to enhance our understanding of how chemical companies wield influence. This detailed examination aims to underscore potential implications for public perception and decision-making.

Scientific capture

16 scientific articles had a predominant focus on scientific capture, specifically examining how corporate funding in the chemical sector manipulates knowledge production [21–31, 33–37].

The most investigated aspect within scientific capture was the conflict of interest in chemical research, involving investigators, journals, and author interference, addressed in 14 articles [21–24, 26–28, 30, 31, 33–37]. Among these, seven articles delve into conflicts of interest with journalists and publishers [21–24, 26, 28, 34], four articles explore conflicts of interest with authors [23, 24, 28, 34–36], and five articles investigate conflicts of interest with investigators [21, 23, 24, 30, 34–36].

In addition, 11 articles explore non-disclosure and selective reporting, where unfavourable results were intentionally concealed [21–24, 26, 27, 30, 34–37], while eight highlight the prevalence of scientific articles written by ghostwriters paid by chemical corporations [23, 26, 28, 29, 34–37]. 11 articles investigate how the strategic downplaying of negative results reflects a deliberate effort to mitigate the perception of risks associated with products [21, 23–27, 30, 34–37]. Only one article delves into disease mongering in the chemical sector [34].

Among the 16 articles [21–31, 33–37], unique features of the chemical industry led to the creation of new subcategories for these captures. Nine articles examine how chemical corporations manufacture doubt [21–24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36], while five study how these corporations discredit laypeople’s knowledge to undermine the reliability of research outcomes [21, 23, 24, 30, 31], and one paper focus on discrediting unfavorable researchers [35].

The overarching theme of scientific capture explores unseen and undone science, particularly the concealment of health effects within corporate-driven agendas. Tactics include efforts to augment corporate-interest favourable publications, suppress adverse findings, and silence unfavourable results.

Regulatory capture

15 articles explored how chemical companies strategically influence or manipulate laws and regulations to prioritize corporate interests over public well-being [1, 21, 23, 25–27, 29–35, 37]. Employing various tactics, the articles show how companies established safety standards aligned with their interests, or create doubt and uncertainty over scientific evidence, effectively delaying legal proceedings, punishments, penalties or regulatory actions.

A prevalent pattern identified in 12 articles is the emergence of conflicts of interest with regulators, constituting a form of capture [1, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30–35, 37]. This capture dynamic is further examined in ten articles investigating lobbying and collaboration with trade associations as significant influencers of public policy [21–23, 25, 27, 29–31, 33, 37]. Examining the theme of self-regulation, six articles highlight how chemical companies resist external regulations [21, 23, 27, 31, 35, 37]. Furthermore, eight articles shed light on how chemical corporations collaborated with the US government to influence public policies in other countries [21–23, 30, 31, 35, 37]. Notably, Monsanto leveraged resources to depoliticize biotechnology, and in other cases, chemical companies collaborated with the American government to influence foreign regulations, employing misrepresentation and manipulation to hinder progress [25]. Lastly, a discernible pattern is the strategic targeting of regulators by chemical companies, tactically influencing decision-making processes. Collectively, these findings illuminate multifaceted and recurrent efforts by chemical companies to wield influence over laws, regulations, and policies, often at the expense of public health and safety.

Professional capture

Seven articles reveal how chemical companies influence professionals to promote their products, cultivating intangible assets beneficial to corporate interests [1, 21, 23, 27–29, 34].

A recurrent strategy identified in the literature involves adapting messages and cultivating relationships—tailoring communications to resonate with professionals, and emphasizing product benefits while downplaying potential risks [23, 27, 34]. Simultaneously, articles explored how chemical corporations advised professionals in order to nurture relationships, fostering trust and loyalty [23, 29, 34]. Key opinion leaders played a crucial role, with four articles identifying influential professionals enlisted to endorse products or advocate for corporate interests, significantly amplifying credibility and acceptance [21, 28, 29, 34]. Moreover, three articles detail how chemical companies extend influence through training, education, and financing research initiatives, conferences, or educational programs to shape knowledge and practices aligning with corporate interests [1, 29, 34]. Additionally, one article highlights the practice of providing gifts and bribes [34], where companies offer incentives to professionals in return for support, compromising objectivity and undermining professional relationships. Another article explores the strategic dissemination of advertising materials directed at professionals as a tactic—leveraging diverse channels to directly promote products, fostering familiarity and preference [34].

Two articles investigate the discrediting of professionals [21, 29] and the issue of “hired guns” [21, 28]. Two articles also investigated smear campaigns employed to further discredit professionals [21, 28]. These observations highlight strategic maneuvers that have been employed by chemical companies to influence professionals, shaping perceptions and behaviors. Understanding these tactics fosters a nuanced recognition of potential conflicts of interest and biases within professional relationships and decision-making processes.

Civil society capture

Six papers delve into the methods employed by chemical companies to sway various entities, including charities, NGOs, trade unions, social movements, and grassroots groups [23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34]. Two papers specifically address conflicts of interest involving consumer groups [29, 34], be it through the establishment of front groups or through financial backing of existing groups.

Additionally, three papers shed light on how chemical companies dispute causation claims to evade compensating victims and their families. The articles detail how the companies successfully challenged established links between their products and adverse health effects, and ultimately sidestepped financial responsibility [23, 27, 31]. Furthermore, two papers reveal instances of chemical companies undermining opposing organizations [25, 29]. This included activities such as spying on environmental groups [25] and fabricating fake memos against environmental organizations [29]. These findings unveil intricate strategies that have been employed by chemical companies to influence a diverse range of groups. Through the use of front groups or financial support, they manipulated narratives, downplayed risks, and advanced their interests [23, 27].

Media capture

Among the 15 papers analyzed [1, 21–34], four explored how chemical companies use media and communication strategies to shape public and “elite” or more informed opinions [21, 28, 29, 34]. These strategies involve targeted efforts and discrediting industry critics.

One significant aspect of media capture noted was direct-to-consumer advertising. Three articles examined how chemical companies engaged consumers directly through diverse marketing campaigns [3, 12, 17]. For example, one article explored the push to replace the phrase "talc used in cosmetics" with "cosmetic talc", which highlights the latter as a marketing construct [21]. Moreover, two papers examined how chemical companies collaborated with journalists and fostered conflicts of interest, thereby exerting influence on information production [28, 34], such as an individual affiliated with Forbes employed by Monsanto. An analysis of these dynamics provides a nuanced understanding of how information is produced and disseminated, with potential influences from corporate interests.

Technological capture

Three articles delved into how chemical companies strategically use technological standards and the safeguarding confidential business information (CBI) to exert influence [21, 26, 31]. One article explores strategic patenting [26], while two others focus on the challenges posed by confidential business information [21, 31].

For instance, one article found that when chemical manufacturers label data as CBI, it becomes challenging for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists to access these data for research studies [31]. Manufacturers can claim submitted information as CBI, limiting its availability to designated EPA offices and approved staff, with strict regulations on sharing within the agency or other government entities [31]. Industries incur no expenses when designating information as confidential business information (CBI), and there is limited oversight or penalties for improper claims. However, as the article notes, the repercussions for mishandling or disclosing CBI data are severe, leading to criminal imprisonment and substantial fines [31].

Considering that transforming agriculture in agribusiness can lead to significant corporate control over the intellectual property in the technology involved in agribusiness, one article included in our review detailed how the formal endorsement of the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and national-level policies like the Plant Variety Protection Act in the United States confer exclusive proprietary rights to breeders [32].

Market capture

Two papers [23, 26], investigate how chemical companies gain market power, restrict competition, and establish dominance. One paper focuses on market concentration in the chemical sector [26], revealing a significant link between primary seed transactions and the use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The other paper explores conflicts of investment [23], exemplified by MetLife’s investments in mining companies producing asbestos and silicosis products. Through detailed scrutiny of annual reports obtained via litigation, this article highlights financial ties between MetLife and the chemical industry. Understanding these investment patterns provides insights into how chemical companies can fortify their market positions.

Other capture

Four articles explore other captures [22–24, 27], with one focusing on the deliberate and unlawful actions of chemical corporations [27]. Three articles explore previously unidentified legal captures [22–24], with one of these articles detailing how industry professionals redefined evidentiary standards for proving causation in potential carcinogen cases [24]. The article shows how asbestos corporations argued for stringent documentation in epidemiologic studies, emphasizing the need for clear evidence regarding the type of asbestos and the precise nature of exposure to establish causation in cancer development. Another article discussed corporate strategies including influencing worker compensation laws and establishing arbitrary protective standards for monitoring asbestos exposure, which facilitates the dismissal of sick workers without informing them of the results [23]. Additionally, collaborations with entities like MetLife, the Federal Bureau of Mines, and asbestos corporation maintain confidentiality of clinical findings.

All corporate captures identified in other categories involved strategic deployment of judicial resources, using existing laws and regulations to impose specific perspectives and actions over the judicial process itself. There is a pressing need for more research on legal capture as a self-contained category for ghost management, particularly concerning the burden of proof. This would refine and enhance our understanding of the Ghost Management framework.

A complex web of COIs

The identified strategies employed by chemical companies to manage their public image involves a complex web of conflicts of interest. Companies strategically nurtured conflicts of interest with various entities such as public institutions, regulatory bodies, professionals, media organizations, and scientific researchers, as revealed in our comprehensive review of peer-reviewed scientific literature [1, 26, 28, 33]. Internal corporate documents from the chemical sector reveals the significant impact these COIs can have on the definition of risks, on policy discussions, on public health and on commercial success.

A prime example of the pervasiveness of COIs is the analysis of the “Monsanto papers”, which shows how Monsanto (now part of Bayer) has promoted glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH). Internal corporate documents show that Monsanto fostered COIs with an impressive network of “independent” academics, scientific journal editors, journalists, regulators and consultants. Working with “independent experts”, Monsanto ghostwrote an important part of the existing literature about the safety of GBH, which has furthered arguments against constraining regulations [1, 26, 28]. Journal editors who also had COIs helped Monsanto interfere in the peer-review process of scientific papers [26, 28]. Monsanto also mobilized its network of “independent researchers” to successfully lobby journals for the retraction of scientific papers questioning the safety of GBH [1, 26, 28]. The company also ghostwrote in the lay media with the help of journalists attacking independent researchers questioning the safety of GBH [28]. Finally, internal corporate documents show Monsanto used their financial relations with three Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to exert undue influence over the EPA and derail a safety review of GBH [1]. This state of affairs should not be surprising considering that Monsanto is well-known for its intimidation and attacks on the reputation of any scientist or journalist questioning the safety of their products [35]. The evidence of COIs from the Monsanto papers shows how the extent of corporate power in shaping narratives and practices, must not be underestimated.

Ignorance/knowledge production

The manipulation of knowledge production and, in particular, the hiding and downplaying of data which may harm a company’s image or profitability seem to be central features of ongoing ghost management strategies related to scientific, professional and civil society captures in the chemical industry. Identified key tactics include non-disclosure of negative findings, systematic opacity of risks through CBI, downplaying of risks, selective reporting of data, ghostwriting of biased reports, bullying and discrediting “hostile” experts, and discrediting laypeople’s experience and knowledge of the risks and harms in using specific chemical products. In many ways, in the analyzed cases, it seems that the selective production of ignorance was as central to the business success of chemical corporations as the production of chemical products themselves.

When analyzing the regulatory structure for PFAS, Richter et al. [31] introduce the concept of the "institutionalized ignorance regime" in the chemical industry. While the concept is used to characterize the lack of regulation for PFAS, it also works well to describe some of the results in this scoping review. The "institutionalized ignorance regime" includes three levels of ignorance, each playing a significant role in shaping the industry’s practices and outcomes.

The first level is "selective ignorance", which involves deliberate efforts to limit (non-disclosure) and manipulate information (ghostwriting) in a way that creates doubt and helps companies evade regulatory scrutiny [29]. Selective ignorance could be compared to manufacturing doubt. By carefully controlling the flow of information, the industry attempts to shape public perception and avoid taking responsibility for potential risks associated with their products [29].

The second level is "forbidden knowledge", which refers to various practices that prevent certain information from becoming widely known [29]. As previously mentioned, the concept of confidential business information (CBI) serves as a means for companies to withhold important data from public scrutiny; the lack of resources within regulatory agencies can prevent a thorough analysis of health and safety data. Additionally, grandfather clauses in regulations, as seen in the Toxic Substance Control Act, provide exemptions to certain chemicals, allowing companies to bypass rigorous evaluation requirements.

The third level of ignorance, "nescience", refers to a complete lack of knowledge or awareness, which can lead to unforeseen risks and uncertainties. In the chemical industry, these risks are often treated as radical uncertainties, meaning they are not fully understood or adequately managed. By not doing the appropriate research on risks, these potential risks disappear as “unknown unknowns”, which allows the shifting of these risks onto civil society stakeholders, including workers, communities, researchers, and decision-makers, without sufficient risk management measures or precautionary actions [31].

Applying Beck’s [16] understanding that risks, as social constructions, are products of power struggle over definitions and are managed through socio-political structures it can be argued that the proposed notions of “selective ignorance” and “forbidden knowledge” [29] can describe dynamics which shape the ways risks are defined and managed. “Nescience” [29], however, refers to dynamics in which the research to find and define risks will not be done, creating radical uncertainty.

This scoping review, which investigated how chemical companies further their corporate interests by examining what the scientific literature has uncovered through the use of internal documents, re-enforces Richter et al.’s notion of the existence of an institutionalized multi-level ignorance regime. Addressing these manifestations of ignorance is essential for fostering a more enlightened, accountable, and responsible chemical industry that would better protect the well-being and safety of citizens.