NewnamJ
Jan 22, 2012
Research Papers / ENG102 Term Paper, CSR & Tobacco Industry [2]
Aesop's Fable of the wolf in sheep's clothing is a cautionary tale warning about a 'wolf' disguised as a sheep to cleverly deceive the shepherd and rant him access to an easy feast of the flock. The story serves as a warning of malice hiding under the guise of innocence and normalcy. This fable translated into modern society still delivers a valuable message. In recent years a figurative wolf has been trying to find its way into the community of companies that are considered socially responsibility. Several top corporations in the tobacco industry have set forth Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. The nature, history, and initiatives proposed by corporations in the tobacco industry strongly conflict with the values and responsibilities associated with Corporate Social Responsibility, and tobacco companies should be closely monitored to prevent misuse of Corporate Social Responsibility in areas such as: marketing, image management, or access to influence policy.
Over the last six decades the tobacco industry has experienced a plethora of public responses ranging from adoration to disdain. There was an appeal of smoking and tobacco-use in the 1950s with classy movie stars, cowboy heart-throbs, and slick politicians all lighting up. This era of romance with tobacco is a far cry from the law suits that plagued big tobacco companies in the 1990s. In more recent years the tobacco industry has battled through advertisement bans, restrictions through policies and regulations, and a surgeon's general warning starting in 1964 that broadcasts the dangerous, even fatal risks, associated with the use of tobacco products. Still, the tobacco industry has found ways to advance forward.
One of the movements to continue growth and business for the tobacco industry was through corporate image management, public relations, and the outward appearance of becoming socially responsible. Two of the major players in the tobacco industry, Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, have joined the circle of corporations with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Several case studies and journal articles have been released with criticism regarding the intention and basis for the CSR initiatives that have been introduced by these tobacco companies. Lissy Friedman states, "The tobacco industry's products are lethal when used as directed, and no amount of public relations or funding...can reconcile that fundamental contradiction with ethical corporate citizenship." (Friedman 819) She proposes that CSR is a mask for the problems created by or related to tobacco. Friedman is one of many that share the concern over the intention behind the charitable and socially responsibly acts by companies like Philip Morris and British American Tobacco. For a majority of critics, the adverse impact of the product being represented by the companies is what initially generates concern. Moreover, the companies in the tobacco industry that practice CSR have continued in business practices that could be considered traditional business for the tobacco industry including: "...fighting litigation and regulation through manipulating scientific studies, trying to influence press coverage and attempting to convince the public and regulators that further regulations of their products is not warranted..."(Friedman 821). The range of negative behavior demonstrated by tobacco companies creates an unlikely pairing for CSR and the tobacco industry. For this reason, tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and British American Tobacco have faced fierce criticism.
The tobacco industry is not the only industry striving to settle in the midst of Corporate Social Responsibility. The culture of Corporate Social Responsibility is fairly new. While Public Relations work dates back to the turn of the 20th century, CSR was not widely studied or publicized until the 19070s. In the past companies have relied on public relations for image and market management to keep the approval of the general public, the consumers. CSR seems to have studied and taken a large part of their movement from the structure for public relations management. Arthur Page was the first in-house public relations expert; he was hired by AT&T in 1927, and coined several of the ideas that are the foundation for public relations and CSR. One of the main ideas he presented was that: public permission allows business to open, and public approval is what keeps them alive (Clark 364). Corporate Social Responsibility experienced a gain in popularity during the 1970s when society demanded that corporations should act responsibility in the environment that they exist, and developed even further when the demands change from the concept that businesses 'should' respond to 'how' they should respond. For tobacco companies' critics have claimed that the 'do good' attempts do not change the negligent business habits or the ethically questionable practices. The disapproval expands into questioning the blatant hypocrisy of companies claiming to be participating and activities and initiatives that positively change the world while remaining part of an industry that produces and distributes a product that has been scientifically proven to have massively adverse health effects not only to the user, but to those exposed to it through secondhand smoking.
For the tobacco industry, along with other industries that have a negative impact on health or society, act associated with Corporate Social Responsibility help to protect from the heavy social backlash from negative information discovered by their consumers, it also presents itself in a form of marketing. Although the product may not be marketed, the brand and company name is. Brand recognition builds customers, and that is what keeps business alive. Professor Gerard Hastings clearly observes, "However good the cause...the payback for CSR comes in respectability, legitimacy and the right to continue doing-and growing- its business. In other words the cost is more tobacco users, more addiction, and more premature death." (Hastings 1) The association with goodwill projects and generous behaviors by the tobacco corporations acts as a new tool for marketing; encouraging the consumers to positively connect the 'death dealing' tobacco companies with responsible and helpful. These actions take place on a global scale, and encompass activities from literacy programs in third world countries to programs for domestic violence awareness. The efforts for social credit by positive association are summarized by Chapman in the article for Tobacco Control from 2004. Asia's 2004 Conference for Ethical Corporations listed Philip Morris as a Gold Sponsor, had conference speakers from British American Tobacco, and included event overview highlights such as: how to profit from CSR and avoiding 'activist and pressure groups'. (Chapman 446) The sponsorship from Philip Morris was pulled prior to the conference due to negative public response. However, the event overview for the Conference displayed the company name and logo clearly running in banners along both sides of the page equating to positive advertisement for the tobacco companies acting as 'sponsors' for the event. The positive association creates value for the companies drawing in a wider base of customers.
The world of advertising and marketing has been fickle with the tobacco industry. Initially the world embraced the glamour of smoking, allowing it on televisions, movies, in literature, and magazines. There was a period of time that the world romanticized the smoke filled room and the adult-habit, but as health risks were discovered, the romance with tobacco quickly ended. Over time regulations were implemented which minimized the marketing avenues for tobacco companies and soon after that anti-smoking and youth-prevention commercials became the main media exposure for society to tobacco products. These shifts caused a need for tobacco companies to find a way to realign themselves with the public and create positive exposure to gain back trust and confidence from its consumer, and Corporate Social Responsibility has become their ticket to reconnect. Philip Morris created PM21, an initiative with the main objective to cover the negative aspects of the company by publicizing the philanthropic and charitable work that it has done.
Norbert Hirschhorn examines documents regarding Philip Morris PM21 agenda. In correspondence between executives (Parrish and Wall to Webb and Bible) it is heavily stressed that lacking in socially responsible activities will leave the company open to attack from the public quoting "...we need to act like our peers in the evolving area of 'corporate social responsibility'. Otherwise, we will stand out as a target and will be vulnerable where we have 'weak links'." (Hirscchorn 450) The documentation provided throughout the article creates a sense that the CSR initiative for Philip Morris was created as a shield or buffer, even a disguise to fit in with other large corporations. For many big companies, CSR programs are a way to contribute to the community and create continued positive relationships with consumers. Whereas, for the tobacco industry- CSR seems to act in a defensive position ready to be used as a weapon in case of an attack. While society calls for large businesses to give back to the community, it is not calling for big business to hide behind well-funded shields of 'charitable' work.
The above-mentioned concerns regarding the use of CSR related to advertisement and image improvement for the tobacco industry pale in comparison to the efforts made to sway science research results and politics. Tobacco companies gain a new access to the media, politicians, and scientists through charitable, socially driven programs. They are able to work side by side with organizations and individuals that have been resistant to the tobacco industry.
Although no amount of so-called philanthropic contribution or volunteer work can change the real results of scientific research, careful planning and the right connections can change the research that is published. Friedman reports in her article:
Despite the tobacco industry's use of corporate social responsibility initiatives to lend the impression it is presenting a more forthright face to the public, internal documents show that the companies appear to have tried to improperly influence the scientific studies they commissioned. (Friedman 822).
Friedman outlines several incidents that tobacco companies have set up studies that could potentially cause damage to their reputation, and then put pressure or found ways to create less damaging results. Some of the examples included in her article were: the use scientists that were personal friends of executives, strategic planning for the location and structure of the studies, and silencing their own scientists' responses to external research.
The deception used to negate scientific findings regarding the use of tobacco on society falls in line with the attempt to sway politicians, regulations, and the law in favor of big tobacco companies. In the articles reviewed (see references) a similar message was communicated regardless of the thesis or main points of the journals, CSR gives the tobacco industry a way to influence legislation. In an analysis of BAT documents, Gary Fooks explains how creating trust is significant in politics. "There is some evidence to suggest that CSR-based access is designed to shift relations from low trust, low frequency access to high trust, high frequency access-something that is broadly recognized as being key to political influence across policy domains" (Fooks 7). Similar ideas and concerns are restated in a multitude of articles including those by Friedman, Hastings, Hirschhorn, and briefly mentioned in an article by Callard and Thompson. In later sections of Fook's article he expands on how tobacco is using CSR to being rebuilding trust: "...by creating new access points for such companies, it helps normalize engagement and dialogue-a crucial step in this context to restoring the trust necessary for the tobacco industry to reestablish its political authority" (Fooks 8). The political authority that the tobacco industry is seeking would keep new legislation at bay and would limit policies and laws that could ban or restrict the use of tobacco, therefore effecting sales and profit.
The tobacco industry and the major companies that exist within it are being called to contribute to society. However, the response to this call should be carefully monitored. The review of CSR initiatives for the tobacco industry has provided insight to the insincere foundation for a majority of work that is considered socially responsible. The misuse of CSR by the tobacco industry is capable of providing a socially acceptable mode for advertising through the good-deeds done by big tobacco companies and improving the brand recognition for consumers. This improved relationship can contribute to increased trust and lend to leniency and tolerance in policy making and enforcing. For an industry that is responsible for nearly one in five deaths in the United States on an annual basis (CDC 1), protecting the industry is merely for financial gain and political authority. It is crucial that the tobacco industry be carefully monitored and regulations stay in place to ensure that the figurative sheep, in this case the consumer and society stay protected by the disguised wolf.
Aesop's Fable of the wolf in sheep's clothing is a cautionary tale warning about a 'wolf' disguised as a sheep to cleverly deceive the shepherd and rant him access to an easy feast of the flock. The story serves as a warning of malice hiding under the guise of innocence and normalcy. This fable translated into modern society still delivers a valuable message. In recent years a figurative wolf has been trying to find its way into the community of companies that are considered socially responsibility. Several top corporations in the tobacco industry have set forth Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. The nature, history, and initiatives proposed by corporations in the tobacco industry strongly conflict with the values and responsibilities associated with Corporate Social Responsibility, and tobacco companies should be closely monitored to prevent misuse of Corporate Social Responsibility in areas such as: marketing, image management, or access to influence policy.
Over the last six decades the tobacco industry has experienced a plethora of public responses ranging from adoration to disdain. There was an appeal of smoking and tobacco-use in the 1950s with classy movie stars, cowboy heart-throbs, and slick politicians all lighting up. This era of romance with tobacco is a far cry from the law suits that plagued big tobacco companies in the 1990s. In more recent years the tobacco industry has battled through advertisement bans, restrictions through policies and regulations, and a surgeon's general warning starting in 1964 that broadcasts the dangerous, even fatal risks, associated with the use of tobacco products. Still, the tobacco industry has found ways to advance forward.
One of the movements to continue growth and business for the tobacco industry was through corporate image management, public relations, and the outward appearance of becoming socially responsible. Two of the major players in the tobacco industry, Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, have joined the circle of corporations with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Several case studies and journal articles have been released with criticism regarding the intention and basis for the CSR initiatives that have been introduced by these tobacco companies. Lissy Friedman states, "The tobacco industry's products are lethal when used as directed, and no amount of public relations or funding...can reconcile that fundamental contradiction with ethical corporate citizenship." (Friedman 819) She proposes that CSR is a mask for the problems created by or related to tobacco. Friedman is one of many that share the concern over the intention behind the charitable and socially responsibly acts by companies like Philip Morris and British American Tobacco. For a majority of critics, the adverse impact of the product being represented by the companies is what initially generates concern. Moreover, the companies in the tobacco industry that practice CSR have continued in business practices that could be considered traditional business for the tobacco industry including: "...fighting litigation and regulation through manipulating scientific studies, trying to influence press coverage and attempting to convince the public and regulators that further regulations of their products is not warranted..."(Friedman 821). The range of negative behavior demonstrated by tobacco companies creates an unlikely pairing for CSR and the tobacco industry. For this reason, tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and British American Tobacco have faced fierce criticism.
The tobacco industry is not the only industry striving to settle in the midst of Corporate Social Responsibility. The culture of Corporate Social Responsibility is fairly new. While Public Relations work dates back to the turn of the 20th century, CSR was not widely studied or publicized until the 19070s. In the past companies have relied on public relations for image and market management to keep the approval of the general public, the consumers. CSR seems to have studied and taken a large part of their movement from the structure for public relations management. Arthur Page was the first in-house public relations expert; he was hired by AT&T in 1927, and coined several of the ideas that are the foundation for public relations and CSR. One of the main ideas he presented was that: public permission allows business to open, and public approval is what keeps them alive (Clark 364). Corporate Social Responsibility experienced a gain in popularity during the 1970s when society demanded that corporations should act responsibility in the environment that they exist, and developed even further when the demands change from the concept that businesses 'should' respond to 'how' they should respond. For tobacco companies' critics have claimed that the 'do good' attempts do not change the negligent business habits or the ethically questionable practices. The disapproval expands into questioning the blatant hypocrisy of companies claiming to be participating and activities and initiatives that positively change the world while remaining part of an industry that produces and distributes a product that has been scientifically proven to have massively adverse health effects not only to the user, but to those exposed to it through secondhand smoking.
For the tobacco industry, along with other industries that have a negative impact on health or society, act associated with Corporate Social Responsibility help to protect from the heavy social backlash from negative information discovered by their consumers, it also presents itself in a form of marketing. Although the product may not be marketed, the brand and company name is. Brand recognition builds customers, and that is what keeps business alive. Professor Gerard Hastings clearly observes, "However good the cause...the payback for CSR comes in respectability, legitimacy and the right to continue doing-and growing- its business. In other words the cost is more tobacco users, more addiction, and more premature death." (Hastings 1) The association with goodwill projects and generous behaviors by the tobacco corporations acts as a new tool for marketing; encouraging the consumers to positively connect the 'death dealing' tobacco companies with responsible and helpful. These actions take place on a global scale, and encompass activities from literacy programs in third world countries to programs for domestic violence awareness. The efforts for social credit by positive association are summarized by Chapman in the article for Tobacco Control from 2004. Asia's 2004 Conference for Ethical Corporations listed Philip Morris as a Gold Sponsor, had conference speakers from British American Tobacco, and included event overview highlights such as: how to profit from CSR and avoiding 'activist and pressure groups'. (Chapman 446) The sponsorship from Philip Morris was pulled prior to the conference due to negative public response. However, the event overview for the Conference displayed the company name and logo clearly running in banners along both sides of the page equating to positive advertisement for the tobacco companies acting as 'sponsors' for the event. The positive association creates value for the companies drawing in a wider base of customers.
The world of advertising and marketing has been fickle with the tobacco industry. Initially the world embraced the glamour of smoking, allowing it on televisions, movies, in literature, and magazines. There was a period of time that the world romanticized the smoke filled room and the adult-habit, but as health risks were discovered, the romance with tobacco quickly ended. Over time regulations were implemented which minimized the marketing avenues for tobacco companies and soon after that anti-smoking and youth-prevention commercials became the main media exposure for society to tobacco products. These shifts caused a need for tobacco companies to find a way to realign themselves with the public and create positive exposure to gain back trust and confidence from its consumer, and Corporate Social Responsibility has become their ticket to reconnect. Philip Morris created PM21, an initiative with the main objective to cover the negative aspects of the company by publicizing the philanthropic and charitable work that it has done.
Norbert Hirschhorn examines documents regarding Philip Morris PM21 agenda. In correspondence between executives (Parrish and Wall to Webb and Bible) it is heavily stressed that lacking in socially responsible activities will leave the company open to attack from the public quoting "...we need to act like our peers in the evolving area of 'corporate social responsibility'. Otherwise, we will stand out as a target and will be vulnerable where we have 'weak links'." (Hirscchorn 450) The documentation provided throughout the article creates a sense that the CSR initiative for Philip Morris was created as a shield or buffer, even a disguise to fit in with other large corporations. For many big companies, CSR programs are a way to contribute to the community and create continued positive relationships with consumers. Whereas, for the tobacco industry- CSR seems to act in a defensive position ready to be used as a weapon in case of an attack. While society calls for large businesses to give back to the community, it is not calling for big business to hide behind well-funded shields of 'charitable' work.
The above-mentioned concerns regarding the use of CSR related to advertisement and image improvement for the tobacco industry pale in comparison to the efforts made to sway science research results and politics. Tobacco companies gain a new access to the media, politicians, and scientists through charitable, socially driven programs. They are able to work side by side with organizations and individuals that have been resistant to the tobacco industry.
Although no amount of so-called philanthropic contribution or volunteer work can change the real results of scientific research, careful planning and the right connections can change the research that is published. Friedman reports in her article:
Despite the tobacco industry's use of corporate social responsibility initiatives to lend the impression it is presenting a more forthright face to the public, internal documents show that the companies appear to have tried to improperly influence the scientific studies they commissioned. (Friedman 822).
Friedman outlines several incidents that tobacco companies have set up studies that could potentially cause damage to their reputation, and then put pressure or found ways to create less damaging results. Some of the examples included in her article were: the use scientists that were personal friends of executives, strategic planning for the location and structure of the studies, and silencing their own scientists' responses to external research.
The deception used to negate scientific findings regarding the use of tobacco on society falls in line with the attempt to sway politicians, regulations, and the law in favor of big tobacco companies. In the articles reviewed (see references) a similar message was communicated regardless of the thesis or main points of the journals, CSR gives the tobacco industry a way to influence legislation. In an analysis of BAT documents, Gary Fooks explains how creating trust is significant in politics. "There is some evidence to suggest that CSR-based access is designed to shift relations from low trust, low frequency access to high trust, high frequency access-something that is broadly recognized as being key to political influence across policy domains" (Fooks 7). Similar ideas and concerns are restated in a multitude of articles including those by Friedman, Hastings, Hirschhorn, and briefly mentioned in an article by Callard and Thompson. In later sections of Fook's article he expands on how tobacco is using CSR to being rebuilding trust: "...by creating new access points for such companies, it helps normalize engagement and dialogue-a crucial step in this context to restoring the trust necessary for the tobacco industry to reestablish its political authority" (Fooks 8). The political authority that the tobacco industry is seeking would keep new legislation at bay and would limit policies and laws that could ban or restrict the use of tobacco, therefore effecting sales and profit.
The tobacco industry and the major companies that exist within it are being called to contribute to society. However, the response to this call should be carefully monitored. The review of CSR initiatives for the tobacco industry has provided insight to the insincere foundation for a majority of work that is considered socially responsible. The misuse of CSR by the tobacco industry is capable of providing a socially acceptable mode for advertising through the good-deeds done by big tobacco companies and improving the brand recognition for consumers. This improved relationship can contribute to increased trust and lend to leniency and tolerance in policy making and enforcing. For an industry that is responsible for nearly one in five deaths in the United States on an annual basis (CDC 1), protecting the industry is merely for financial gain and political authority. It is crucial that the tobacco industry be carefully monitored and regulations stay in place to ensure that the figurative sheep, in this case the consumer and society stay protected by the disguised wolf.