Product details

As proponents claimed, impact assessment (IA) could go a long way in ensuring that any public policy would be transparent, scientific, rational and above all democratic. It was claimed that a unanimously decided IA tool could help a great deal in assessing potential impacts of various policy options. However, there had often been allegations concerning flexible nature of the implementation of IA findings with no rigid imperative. There had been a large embodiment of research work criticising the use of IA within policymaking, the reason behind which was that such tools allegedly complicated political decisions. Because of this, the decision to employ certain specific IA was often viewed as favouring the interests of corporate biggies over various public interest groups. The European Community claimed to have committed itself to employ a type of business impact assessment (BIA) embedding adequate rationality. However, reviews of many IAs conducted by the European Commission (EC) were indicative of non-inclusion of human health implications. Such findings were viewed as contrary to the explicit statement in some public policy instruments that ensured a high level of protection to human health. The findings also tempted many public health policy analysts to view that IA was tilted to benefit business. The British American Tobacco (BAT) was subject to such allegations of attempting to influence policies in its favour through business-oriented IAs. Well, there still remained a bone of contention as to how much the alleged IA-centric lobbying by BAT would influence its business profile or otherwise in the global public health scenario.