Tobacco industry messaging around harm: Narrative framing in PMI and BAT press releases and annual reports 2011 to 2021

Abstract

Influencing public perception is a key way in which all transnational corporations (TNCs) maintain market dominance and political power. Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have a long history of leveraging narratives to serve commercial ambitions. The global reach of these companies' narratives has been highlighted as a challenge in combatting public health problems caused by tobacco. The corporate power of TTCs is carefully curated, and their narratives play an important role in the setting of governance dynamics at local, national and transnational levels. This qualitative work explores and compares the language used by British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International (PMI) around harm, harm reduction and terms used to refer to newer nicotine and tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. We systematically examine framings used by these two TTCs through company reports published between 2011 and 2021. Qualitative coding was carried out by four coders, according to a protocol developed specifically for this work. We firstly identified the presence of pre-selected keywords and then assigned chunks of text containing those key words to one or more associated frames drawn from Boydstun's policy frames codebook (2013). Qualitative coding identified the most common frames from Boydstun's codebook and thematic analysis highlighted three overarching themes. The most common frames assigned were “capacity and resources”, “health and safety” and “economic” frames. The overarching themes were individualization, normalization, and regulation. These themes capture how both BAT and PMI use particular framings to downplay the role of TTCs in the perpetuation of population- and individual-level harms related to tobacco use. They seek to normalize their role in public discussions of health policy, to cast themselves as instrumental in the redress of tobacco-related inequalities and shift responsibility for the continuation of tobacco-product use onto individual consumers. These tactics are problematic for the effective and impartial development and implementation of local, national and international tobacco control agendas.

Analysis of Philip Morris International’s ‘aspirational’ target for its 2025 cigarette shipments

“…This finding is consistent with the two sides to its rhetoric observed in analysis of its outputs-a public-facing rhetoric that claims a commitment to public health goals and an investorfacing rhetoric that focuses on business as usual (maintaining revenue and profits). 9 It provides further evidence that PMI is not transforming but is instead seeking to harness genuine public health interest in harm reduction to secure influence and undermine progress in tobacco control, 14 20 21 a strategy it has a history of using. [22][23][24]…”

Seeking to be seen as legitimate members of the scientific community? An analysis of British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International’s involvement in scientific events

“…Researchers have also strongly challenged the FSFW’s claims of independence and legitimacy 29 30. There has also been criticism of the way the industry communicates with regulators31 and its customer base,32 33 which contrasts with the material it directs to its shareholders,34 and there has been scrutiny of scientific publishing practice, exposing flaws such as failure of industry-funded researchers to disclose conflicts of interest and efforts to circumvent journal policies to exclude the tobacco industry by submitting under third parties 9 25 29 30 35…”

Vape Gods, Vape Lords, and Fiends: The Language of Vaping

“…Exposure to tobacco content on social media has repeatedly been associated with tobacco use [21], including e-cigarettes, further highlighting the importance of understanding the language employed by tobacco advertisers and marketers, health advocates, and consumers and potential consumers of these products. In addition, beyond e-cigarette content on social media, much work remains to investigate the overall effects of tobacco industry promotion, such as through linguistic framing [22].…”