In an increasingly complex global landscape, the subtle yet pervasive influence of powerful industries on environmental and health policies has become a critical area of concern for scientists and policymakers alike. A newly published peer-reviewed study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters illuminates the multifaceted strategies—termed “corporate capture”—used by industries ranging from fossil fuels to pharmaceuticals to quietly shape laws, scientific research, and public discourse. This covert manipulation often impedes meaningful action addressing some of the planet’s most urgent crises, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution.
Originating from more than eight decades of research, the concept of corporate capture traditionally focuses on the undue sway exerted by industries over regulatory agencies and decision-makers. However, this latest comprehensive literature review, led by Professor Alex Ford of the University of Portsmouth, expands the scope to include a broader array of institutions. Universities, non-governmental organizations, cultural institutions, and even intergovernmental panels are all susceptible to capturing influence, making the problem systemic and far-reaching.
Professor Ford and his collaborators provide compelling evidence drawn from various sectors, revealing how financial dependencies and strategic partnerships subtly alter the trajectory of environmental governance. For instance, regulatory bodies increasingly rely on industry-generated data, which may be selectively curated or skewed to downplay risks. Similarly, academic institutions dependent on funding from fossil fuel companies risk compromising the objectivity and transparency of scientific research—a phenomenon dubbed “Frackademia.” Museums and NGOs accepting sponsorship from environmental offenders inadvertently disseminate biased messaging, undermining public understanding of critical issues.
One of the study’s most alarming insights is the normalization of these capture strategies in environments traditionally regarded as impartial. Scientific conferences funded by pesticide companies, film productions historically backed by tobacco interests, and social media algorithms amplifying climate denial exemplify how industry influence permeates both formal and informal channels. This influence is often cloaked under the guise of corporate social responsibility or philanthropic support, making it difficult to discern where genuine collaboration ends and manipulation begins.
The authors underscore that corporate capture is rarely a story of outright corruption or bribery. Instead, it is often a web of systemic, institutionalized dependencies that create conflicts of interest invisible to many stakeholders. Such dependencies result in regulatory inertia, where potentially harmful products remain on the market, scientific findings are suppressed or sidelined, and environmental policies are systematically watered down to protect commercial interests.
Importantly, the study does not demonize all engagement between industry and public bodies. The private sector has been instrumental in fostering innovation and supporting legitimate environmental initiatives. The crux lies in ensuring that such collaborations are transparent, accountable, and free from conflicts that would compromise public welfare or environmental integrity. Co-author Dr. Maria Clara Starling emphasizes the necessity for transparent governance structures capable of discerning beneficial partnerships from capture attempts aimed at delaying or diluting action.
In light of these revelations, the study calls for robust conflict of interest policies and greater transparency in research funding at all levels. One particularly innovative recommendation is the incorporation of educational programs within universities, equipping students—especially those in environmental sciences—with the tools needed to recognize and counteract misinformation and undue influence. This proactive approach aims to inoculate the next generation of scientists and policymakers against the subtle traps of corporate capture.
The insights provided by Professor Ford and his colleagues align with recent investigative findings exposing similar tactics within the water industry and other sectors, reinforcing a growing narrative about the multidimensional nature of corporate influence in environmental governance. Earlier in the year, Professor Ford co-authored research highlighting how England’s water sector strategically deflects blame for sewage pollution through sophisticated communication tactics, a case that echoes many of the principles outlined in this new study.
Understanding the nuances of corporate capture is crucial in an era marked by escalating environmental crises that demand urgent, uncompromised action. As commercial interests do not always align with public or planetary health, recognizing how they can subtly slow progress is essential for designing effective safeguards. This study serves as both a warning and a call to arms for enhanced vigilance, transparency, and reform within institutions tasked with safeguarding our shared future.
Ultimately, confronting the challenge of corporate capture will require collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers, civil society, and the public, underpinned by a commitment to integrity and accountability. As the planet faces unprecedented threats, disempowering capture strategies is not just an academic exercise but a vital step towards securing a sustainable and equitable future for all.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Corporate ‘capture strategies’ impacting human and ecosystem health
News Publication Date: 10-Sep-2025
Web References:
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00277
https://www.port.ac.uk/about-us/structure-and-governance/our-people/our-staff/alex-ford
https://www.ipcp.ch/
References:
Ford, A., Starling, M.C., et al. (2025). Corporate ‘capture strategies’ impacting human and ecosystem health. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00277
Keywords: Environmental issues, Regulatory policy
