Evaluating tobacco industry ‘transformation’: a proposed rubric and analysis

Abstract

Some tobacco companies claim they are ‘transforming’ by adopting harm reduction goals or even seeking to achieve a ‘smokefree’ world. What characterises transformation and whether companies can or are transforming is unclear. Nevertheless, such claims are gaining traction. We critically investigated tobacco industry transformation by exploring the definition and criteria for evaluating transformation, and assessed whether transformation is occurring and feasible.Companies’ transformation claims centre on increasing sales of new tobacco and nicotine products like e-cigarettes (‘new products’) with little attention to reducing sales of more hazardous smoked and oral products (‘conventional products’).We define a transforming tobacco company as one demonstrating substantial, rapid and verifiable progress towards eliminating the production and sale of conventional tobacco products within 5 years in all markets where it operates.We found no evidence any tobacco company is meeting the three essential criteria of rapidly progressing towards eliminating conventional products, ceasing to obstruct effective tobacco control measures and taking action to minimise smoking uptake and disparities. While some companies are developing new product portfolios, their actions are more consistent with profit maximisation than eliminating conventional product use. This approach is best described as ‘pseudo-transformation’, designed to delay implementation of effective tobacco control policies. In addition, our analysis suggests replacing conventional products with new nicotine products is unlikely to be a viable long-term business model.Public health practitioners should not rely on tobacco industry claims but should lead the transformation debate, establish credible definitions and criteria, and monitor and assess whether transformation is occurring.

The portrayal of electronic cigarettes in Indonesia: a content analysis of news media

“…A recent study evaluated this ‘transformation’ claimed by the industry, and the result was that no tobacco company met the criteria of ‘transformation’. The industry is still trying to increase its sales of combustible cigarettes and influence tobacco control measures in most countries [ 44 ].…”

How do New Zealand youth perceive the smoke-free generation policy? A qualitative analysis

“…40 Given the constraint and harm that nicotine addiction causes, these richly ironic claims question the sincerity of transformation rhetoric. 56 Policy makers and civil society should hold tobacco companies to account for discrepancies between their past statements and current behaviour, and rigorously implement FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines to limit their influence on policy making. 57 While we cannot generalise our findings, they provide few grounds to support tobacco companies' arguments that youth will find the SFG unacceptable.…”

“…However, BAT(NZ) opposed the SFG and claimed access to tobacco is an ‘important freedom’ that supports young people’s ‘right to autonomy’ 40. Given the constraint and harm that nicotine addiction causes, these richly ironic claims question the sincerity of transformation rhetoric 56. Policy makers and civil society should hold tobacco companies to account for discrepancies between their past statements and current behaviour, and rigorously implement FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines to limit their influence on policy making 57…”

Tobacco industry’s ‘wellness’ tactic: Ethical dilemma and solutions

“…Tobacco companies must not be allowed to get creative about new ways to deceive, harm, or kill people and profit from the same. One must take into account the harms caused by the tobacco industry to date, and the future harms it will likely cause given its history and business model 41 , 42 .…”