Unveiling chemical industry secrets: Insights gleaned from scientific literatures that examine internal chemical corporate documents—A scoping review

Objective: Examine peer-reviewed scientific articles that used internal industry documents in the chemical sector to reveal corporate influence. Summarize sources of internal documents used in prior scientific papers to identify ongoing corporate strategies within the chemical field. Compare the corporate strategies identified in the chemical sector with the ones identified already identified in the pharmaceutical sector. Propose a theoretical framework for categorizing and examining the different form of corporate capture at play. Design: Performed a scoping review to pinpoint scientific papers employing internal industry/corporate documents within the chemical sector. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using broad and case study-derived keywords, detailed in the S1 Appendix. This resulted in 351 sources from 28 databases, encompassing peer-reviewed articles analyzing internal documents of chemical corporations. We complemented our efforts with a snowball sampling method to uncover additional case studies and journal articles not initially captured by our search. Results were categorized and analyzed using Marc-Andre Gagnon and Sergio Sismondo’s ghost management framework. Results: The final results included and analyzed 18 scientific papers. Legal proceedings served as the primary source of internal document data for all examined articles. We uncovered and categorized dynamic strategies employed by chemical corporations to protect and advance their interests, including scientific capture (n = 16), regulatory capture (n = 15), professional capture (n = 7), civil society capture (n = 6), media capture (n = 4), legal capture (n = 4), technological capture (n = 3), and market capture (n = 2). Comparative analysis: The limited scientific literature meeting our criteria confirms early findings by Wieland et al, highlighting a research gap in the chemical industry. Our analysis, building on the ghost-management framework, shows a different emphasis in the way internal documents were used in scientific literature to understand corporate strategies at play in the chemical sector as compared to the pharmaceutical sector. In contrast to Gagnon and Dong’s pharmaceutical corporate capture review, which identified 37 papers before 2022, our chemical industry findings reveal a lower count, with only 18 papers identified. Notably, the vast majority of the papers in both sectors shows an emphasis on analyzing strategies used for scientific capture. However, the area of regulatory capture reveals a significant distinction: only 6 of the 37 articles related to the pharmaceutical industry analyzed this dimension, as compared to 15 of the 18 articles related to the chemical industry. This body of work suggests that existing research on the chemical industry is particularly concerned with analyzing how the sector navigates and circumvents regulatory oversight. Both industries employ strategies involving conflicts of interest and the legitimization of their actions to shield themselves from public policy scrutiny and protect their interests. However, their goals seem to be significantly different. The scientific literature analyzing the pharmaceutical industry’s internal document tends to identify strategies maximizing profits through the biased promotion of health products, whereas the scientific literature analyzing the chemical industry’s internal documents is more inclined in identifying strategies institutionalizing ignorance about existing risks, evading accountability, and preventing regulatory actions. Strengths: Our scoping review shows how internal documents can reveal how the chemical industry strategically institutionalizes ignorance to manage business risks. It exposes intentional efforts by chemical corporations to promote ignorance and foster conflicts of interest, thereby legitimizing their business models and safeguarding corporate interests. We shared our research findings on the Dataverse/ Borealis platform (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/EOIOAU), making them accessible for future studies to apply the same analytical framework seamlessly. Limitations: We excluded papers that did not meet our research criteria, prioritizing those that analyzed internal corporate documents for uncovering covert ghost management captures. Beyond scientific literature, various grey literature sources have conducted quality investigations on ghost management strategies in the chemical industry, and many leaked internal documents in the chemical industry, often available through toxicdocs.org, were not analyzed in the scientific literature. Also, market concentration and other corporate captures can be investigated using publicly available resources. Despite searching scientific papers in various languages, no relevant publications were found outside of English. This presents an opportunity for future research to conduct a separate scoping review.