Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T22:04:07.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Credibility Engineering in the Food Industry: Linking Science, Regulation, and Marketing in a Corporate Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2011

Bart Penders  and
Annemiek P. Nelis
Bart Penders
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands1
Annemiek P. Nelis
Affiliation:
University of York2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

We expand upon the notion of the “credibility cycle” through a study of credibility engineering by the food industry. Research and development (R&D) as well as marketing contribute to the credibility of the food company Unilever and its claims. Innovation encompasses the development, marketing, and sales of products. These are directed towards three distinct audiences: scientific peers, regulators, and consumers. R&D uses scientific articles to create credit for itself amongst peers and regulators. These articles are used to support health claims on products. However, R&D, regulation, and marketing are not separate realms. A single strategy of credibility engineering connects health claims to a specific public through linking that public to a health issue and a food product.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 487 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, Robert C. 1994. Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. New York: M. Evans & Company.Google Scholar
Bal, Roland. 2005. “How to Kill with a Ball-point: Credibility in Dutch Forensic Science.” Science, Technology and Human Values 30:52–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banga, Vanga. 2006. “Vitality in Action. Unilever's Consumer Insights.” Barcelona: Unilever.Google Scholar
Barrow, Craig. S. and Conrad, James W.. 2006. “Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114:153–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busfield, Joan. 2006. “Pills, Power, People: Sociological Understandings of the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Sociology 40:297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, Keating, Peter, Schlich, Thomas, and Weisz, George. 2006. “Regulatory Objectivity and the Generation and Management of Evidence in Medicine.” Social Science and Medicine 63:189–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conrad, Peter. 2005. “The Shifting Engines of Medicalization.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46:3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA. 2008. “Scientific opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies on a request from Unilever PLC/NV on Plant sterols and lower/reduced blood cholesterol, reduced the risk of (coronary) heart disease.” EFSA Journal 781:1–12.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, David K. 1978. Unilever Overseas. The Anatomy of a Multinational. Stanford CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Gylling, Helena, Hallikainen, Maarit, Rajaratnam, Radhakrishnan A., Simonen, Piia, Pihlajamäki, Jussi, Laakso, Markku, and Miettinen, Tatu A.. 2009. “The Metabolism of Plant Sterols Is Disturbed in Postmenopausal Women with Coronary Artery Disease.” Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 58:401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessels, Laurens K., van Lente, Harro, and Smits, Ruud. 2009. “In Search of Relevance: The Changing Contract between Science and Society.” Science and Public Policy 36:387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey. 2005. Renewing Unilever. Transformation and Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katan, Martijn B. 2008. Wat is nu gezond? Fabels en feiten over voeding. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Katan, Martijn B., Grundy, S. M., Jones, P., Law, M., Miettinen, T., and Paoletti, R.. 2003. “Efficacy and Safety of Plant Stanols and Sterols in the Management of Blood Cholestrol Levels.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 78:965–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinchy, Abby J. and Kleinman, Daniel. 2003. “Organizing Credibility: Discursive and Organizational Orthodoxy on the Borders of Ecology and Politics.” Social Studies of Science 33:869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin D. 1982. “Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science.” Social Studies of Science 12:101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Tim and Haesman, Michael. 2004. Food Wars. The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve. [1979] 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lehenkari, Janne. 2000. “Studying Innovation Trajectories and Networks: The Case of Benecol Margarine.” Science Studies 13 (1):50–67.Google Scholar
Lehenkari, Janne. 2003. “On the Borderline of Food and Drug: Constructing Credibility and Markets for a Functional Food Product.” Science as Culture 12 (4):499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lente, Harro and Rip, Arie. 1998. “The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetoric to Social Reality.” Social Studies of Science 28:221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lente, Harro and van Til, Jon I.. 2008. “Articulation of Sustainability in the Emerging Field of Nanocoatings.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16:967–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lien, Marianne E. 1993. “From Deprived to Frustrated. Consumer Segmentation in Food and Nutrition.” In Regulating Markets, Regulating People, edited by Kjærnes, U., Holm, L., Ekström, M., Fürst, E. L., and Prättälä, R., 153–171. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar
Lien, Marianne E. 1997. Marketing and Modernity. Oxford/New York: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Norman and Long, Ann. 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 2002. “‘Science above all Else’. The Inversion of Credibility between Forensic DNA Profiling and Fingerprint Evidence.” In Expertise in Regulation and Law, edited by Edmond, Gary, 121–135. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Marres, Noortje. 2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science 37:759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHenry, Leemon. 2009. “Ghosts in the Machine: Comment on Sismondo.” Social Studies of Science 39:943–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science. The Reward and Communication Systems of Science Are Considered.” Science 159:56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestle, Marion. 2002. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter, and Gibbons, Michael. 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Packer, Kathryn and Webster, Andrew. 1996. “Patenting Culture in Science. Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility.” Science, Technology and Human Values 21:427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penders, Bart, Verbakel, John M. A., and Nelis, Annemiek P.. 2009. “The Social Study of Corporate Science: A Research Manifesto.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 29:439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Eevelyn M., Mata, Joe M., and Gieryn, Thomas M.. 2007. “Science and the Discursive Politics of Policy: Examining Credibility and Policy Framing.” Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. New York.Google Scholar
Rip, Arie. 1994. “The Republic of Science in the 1990s.” Higher Education 28:3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronteltap, Amber. 2008. Public Acceptance of Nutrigenomics-based Personalised Nutrition. Exploring the Future with Experts and Consumers. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Center.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1995. “Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science.” Perspectives on Science 3:255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 2007. “Expertise, Common Sense and the Atkins Diet.” In Public Science in Liberal Democracy, edited by Porter, Jene M., and Phillips, Peter W. B., eds., 174–193. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life. A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Michele. 2006. Appetite for Profit. How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 2007. “Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?” PLoS Medicine 4:e286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sismondo, Sergio. 2009a. “Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences.” Social Studies of Science 39:171–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sismondo, Sergio. 2009b. “Ghosts in the Machine: Reply to McHenry.” Social Studies of Science 39:949–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. “Linking Research and Marketing, a Pharmaceutical Innovation.” In Perspectives on 20th Century Pharmaceuticals, edited by Quirke, Viviane and Slinn, Judy, 241–256. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio and Doucet, Mark. 2010. “Publication Ethics and the Ghost Management of Medical Publication.” Bioethics 24:273–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Adrian, Stirling, Andy, and Berkhout, Frans. 2005. “The Governance of Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions.” Research Policy 34:1491–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truswell, A. Stewart. 2001. “Levels and Kinds of Evidence for Public-Health Nutrition.” Lancet 357:1061–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unilever. 2007. “Indirect Communication Strategy.” 24. Rotterdam/Vlaardingen: Unilever.Google Scholar
Unilever. 2009a. “Successful Campaign for Becel and Care for Women. Women of 50+ More Aware of Cholesterol Risks.” Unilever Vitality News 2:1.Google Scholar
Unilever. 2009b. Creating a Better Future Every Day. Annual Report and Accounts 2009. Rotterdam/London: Unilever NV/PLC.Google Scholar
Weingärtner, Oliver, Lütjohann, Dieter, Ji, Shengbo, Weisshoff, Nicole, List, Franka, Sudhop, Thomas, von Bergmann, Klaus, Gertz, Karen, König, Jochem, Schäfers, Hans-Joachim, Endres, Matthias, Böhm, Michael, and Laufs, Ulrich. 2008. “Vascular Effects of Diet Supplementation With Plant Sterols.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 51:1553–1561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Charles. [1954/1968] 1970. The History of Unilever. A Study in Economic Growth and Social Change. 3 Vols. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Wubs, Ben. 2008. International Business and National War Interests. Unilever between Reich and Empire, 1939–45. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar