Perceptions of industry responsibility and tobacco control policy by US tobacco company executives in trial testimony

Abstract

Objective:Trial testimony from the United States provides a unique opportunity to examine strategies of the American tobacco industry. This paper examines congruence between the arguments for tobacco control policy presented by representatives of the American tobacco industry at trial and the stages of responsibility associated with corporate social responsibility principles in other industries.Data sources:Trial testimony collected and coded by the Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA).Study selection:All available testimony was gathered from representative senior staff from major tobacco companies: Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and Liggett.Data extraction:Transcripts from each witness selected were collected and imported in text format into WinMax, a qualitative data program. The documents were searched for terms relating to tobacco control policies, and relevant terms were extracted. A hand search of the documents was also conducted by reading through the testimony. Inferred responsibility for various tobacco control policies (health information, second-hand smoking, youth smoking) was coded.Data synthesis:The level of responsibility for tobacco control policy varied according to the maturity of the issue. For emerging issues, US tobacco company representatives expressed defensiveness while, for more mature issues, such as youth smoking, they showed increased willingness to deal with the issue. This response to social issues is consistent with corporate social responsibility strategies in other industries.Conclusion:While other industries use corporate social responsibility programmes to address social issues to protect their core business product, the fundamental social issue with tobacco is the product itself. As such, the corporate nature of tobacco companies is a structural obstacle to reducing harm caused by tobacco use.

How Tobacco Companies are Perceived Within the United Kingdom: An Online Panel

“…19 The fundamental problem for tobacco companies is that they are corporate entities that profit from selling products, mainly cigarettes, which have no safe level of consumption. 20,21 As the longstanding promise of a safer cigarette never materialised it is difficult for tobacco companies to gain credibility when it comes to harm reduction, particularly given their poor corporate reputation, which has not been helped by the allegations of bribery made against a leading tobacco firm at the end of 2015 22 , and consumer mistrust, as found in this study. However, investment in companies manufacturing lower risk nicotine products such as e-cigarettes may provide them with the opportunity to harness public debates and understanding (or lack of) harm reduction.…”

Success Counteracting Tobacco Company Interference in Thailand: An Example of FCTC Implementation for Low- and Middle-income Countries

“…The TTM also supports many environmental and educational programs in schools throughout Thailand. TTCs present their CSR policies and practices as part of their public face, seeking to divert the public’s attention away from the detrimental effects of their products while never conceding that they have any responsibility for the harm their products cause [ 36 ]. The TTCs’ public face of ‘CSR’ policies and practices is contrasted by their private face of moral disengagement and relentless pursuit of legal maneuvers to protect themselves from product liability actions or punitive legal decisions [ 37 ].…”

Stakeholders' opinions about a tobacco policy in Lao PDR

“…While other industries use corporate social responsibility to address social issues, the tobacco industry protects their core business product. As such, the corporate nature of tobacco companies is a structural obstacle to reducing harm caused by tobacco use [ 16 ]. Therefore, the expressed defensiveness might be a natural way to behave for those with a vested interest.…”