Civil Society in Global Health Governance: Analytical Insights from the Fiocruz Global Health Observatory
1
Public Health Faculty, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
2
Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3
Institute of International Relations, PUC - Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil
5
Institute of Collective Health, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A3224
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Amid growing uncertainty surrounding the financing of international organizations and the increasing influence of private actors, some civil society organizations (CSOs) have been instrumental in advocating for democratic global health governance. Their actions, ranging from humanitarian aid to advocacy and policy influence, reflect both democratizing potential and power asymmetries regarding whether health is conceived as a right or as a commodity. This study analyzes the narratives, priorities, and modes of engagement of CSOs in the global health arena between 2022 and 2024.
METHODS:
A qualitative, analytical, and reflexive study was conducted using 67 biweekly issues of the Global Health and Health Diplomacy Report, produced by the Fiocruz Global Health Center in Brazil. The corpus, comprising 1,532 public statements from over fifty CSOs, underwent thematic content analysis (Bardin, 2011; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Manifestations were categorized into ten macrothemes and grouped by organizational type (public-interest or private-interest) allowing the identification of patterns and contrasts in discourses and agendas.
RESULTS:
Public-interest CSOs prioritized the following themes in their statements: Social and Economic Determinants, Equity, and Human Rights (18.4%), Communicable Diseases and Biosafety (14.3%), and Health Policy, Diplomacy, and Governance (11%). Their narratives emphasized solidarity, justice, and rights-based approaches. Private-interest CSOs focused on technological innovation, and very specific health problems or populations groups, often avoiding issues of inequities, violent conflicts, and threats to human rights.
CONCLUSIONS:
This continuous monitoring of CSO discourses demonstrates that CSOs are very active in the global health arena. While public interest organizations advocate for democratization and transparency, philanthropic-corporate actors promote technocratic and market oriented solutions. If both approaches can contribute to tackle global health problems, strengthening a broad and inclusive participation of CSOs remains vital for a more just and equitable global health order.
Amid growing uncertainty surrounding the financing of international organizations and the increasing influence of private actors, some civil society organizations (CSOs) have been instrumental in advocating for democratic global health governance. Their actions, ranging from humanitarian aid to advocacy and policy influence, reflect both democratizing potential and power asymmetries regarding whether health is conceived as a right or as a commodity. This study analyzes the narratives, priorities, and modes of engagement of CSOs in the global health arena between 2022 and 2024.
METHODS:
A qualitative, analytical, and reflexive study was conducted using 67 biweekly issues of the Global Health and Health Diplomacy Report, produced by the Fiocruz Global Health Center in Brazil. The corpus, comprising 1,532 public statements from over fifty CSOs, underwent thematic content analysis (Bardin, 2011; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Manifestations were categorized into ten macrothemes and grouped by organizational type (public-interest or private-interest) allowing the identification of patterns and contrasts in discourses and agendas.
RESULTS:
Public-interest CSOs prioritized the following themes in their statements: Social and Economic Determinants, Equity, and Human Rights (18.4%), Communicable Diseases and Biosafety (14.3%), and Health Policy, Diplomacy, and Governance (11%). Their narratives emphasized solidarity, justice, and rights-based approaches. Private-interest CSOs focused on technological innovation, and very specific health problems or populations groups, often avoiding issues of inequities, violent conflicts, and threats to human rights.
CONCLUSIONS:
This continuous monitoring of CSO discourses demonstrates that CSOs are very active in the global health arena. While public interest organizations advocate for democratization and transparency, philanthropic-corporate actors promote technocratic and market oriented solutions. If both approaches can contribute to tackle global health problems, strengthening a broad and inclusive participation of CSOs remains vital for a more just and equitable global health order.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
