ContextOver the past three decades, industry sponsored research expanded in the United States. Financial incentives can lead to potential conflicts of interest (COI) resulting in underreporting of negative study results.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that over the three decades, there would be an increase in: a) reporting of conflict of interest and source of funding; b) percentage of randomized control trials c) number of patients per study and d) industry funding.Data sources and Study SelectionOriginal articles published in three calendar years (1988, 1998, and 2008) in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were collected.Data ExtractionStudies were reviewed and investigational design categorized as prospective and retrospective clinical trials. Prospective trials were categorized into randomized or non-randomized and single-center or multi-center trials. Retrospective trials were categorized as registries, meta-analyses and other studies, mostly comprising of case reports or series. Study outcomes were categorized as positive or negative depending on whether the pre-specified hypothesis was met. Financial disclosures were researched for financial relationships and profit status, and accordingly categorized as government, non-profit or industry sponsored. Studies were assessed for reporting COI.Results1,671 original articles were included in this analysis. Total number of published studies decreased by 17% from 1988 to 2008. Over 20 year period, the proportion of prospective randomized trials increased from 22 to 46% (p < 0.0001); whereas the proportion of prospective non-randomized trials decreased from 59% to 27% (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the percentage of prospective randomized multi-center trials from 11% to 41% (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a reduction in non-randomized single-center trials from 47% to 10% (p < 0.001). Proportion of government funded studies remained constant, whereas industry funded studies more than doubled (17% to 40%; p < 0.0001). The number of studies with negative results more than doubled (10% to 22%; p<0.0001). While lack of funding disclosure decreased from 35% to 7%, COI reporting increased from 2% to 84% (p < 0.0001).ConclusionImproved reporting of COI, clarity in financial sponsorship, increased publication of negative results in the setting of larger and better designed clinical trials represents a positive step forward in the scientific publications, despite the higher percentage of industry funded studies.

Scholars have outlined several corporate social responsibility (CSR) classifications to analyse the wide range of CSR initiatives. The usage of diverse CSR types has resulted in independent and fragmented research. Previous literature reviews have analysed the overall CSR domain or focused on specific CSR activity, like cause‐related marketing. A comprehensive review of CSR classifications is not available to the best of the authors' knowledge. This article synthesizes the literature on CSR classification and proposes a holistic brand CSR mechanism classification schema. We review the CSR classifications outlined in 104 academic resources published between 1979 and 2021 (across 47 ABDC listed journals and one book). The review utilizes the 5W1H—Who, Why, What, When, Where and How—analytical framework to reveal the underlying rationale of different CSR classifications. The 5W1H analysis indicates that the majority of CSR classifications are from the overall business perspective rather than the product brand perspective. It also suggests the importance of the CSR delivery mechanism, that is, how CSR is delivered. The review finds a lack of conceptual basis in the extant brand CSR mechanism classifications. To address these challenges, we propose a conceptually grounded classification schema for brand CSR mechanisms with 10 classes to capture the feasible options holistically and parsimoniously. We describe the proposed classes and sub‐classes, provide real‐life illustrations, and assess the proposed classification's robustness. The implications of this study for theory, practice, and consumers are discussed. Leveraging the proposed classification, we identify several avenues for further research.

No abstract