Big Tobacco: we're listening
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 Whenever Big Tobacco gets a mention on this blog someone often pipes up and complains that the companies don't do enough for the consumer. Or, if they do, they fail to communicate it. Sometimes, BT is even blamed for the smoking ban!
Last year I was invited by Imperial Tobacco to join an "independent stakeholder panel" to assess the company's Corporate Responsibility Review.
Conscious that I am not a smoker (although I am fairly well-versed on what a broad cross-section of smokers think), I suggested that the panel also include a consumer whose views I have come to trust and respect. An accredited psychotherapist and trainer, working in private practice and for the NHS, she has also worked as a writer, editor and consultant outside the therapy world. Readers of Taking Liberties will be familiar with the name because Rose Whiteley often comments on this blog.
The stakeholder panel met twice. To ensure our independence, meetings were facilitated by a company specialising in global corporate responsibility. Bearing in mind that there were eight panellists representing a variety of stakeholders (including investors and the media), I think Rose and I managed to represent the consumer reasonably well.
Credit too to Imperial whose representatives were very responsive to the points we made. You can judge from these extracts which appear in the Review, published last month:
The [Stakeholder] Panel recommended that an account be given of how Imperial Tobacco approaches contentious issues through its CR [corporate responsibility] programme. This should clarify for the reader the Company’s priority issues and approaches, and should set out an over-arching position statement on smoking, health and consumer choice. In particular, some felt that the Review could do more to speak up for the consumers of Imperial’s products.
Imperial's response:
We recognise that we could be more assertive in our response to contentious issues and that there is greater opportunity to align our position with that of the consumer. This will be something to consider going forward.
Overall, the document continues, the Panel felt that the Review provides good coverage of the key issues of interest and relevance to stakeholders. However, there were three areas where more information could be given:
The first concerned Imperial Tobacco’s involvement in public policy debate. The consensus among the Panel was that the Company does proactively engage in discussions on regulation and the future of the tobacco industry when it is possible. However, sometimes Imperial Tobacco’s participation in such debate is blocked.
In order to communicate the Company’s commitment to engagement, and the challenges faced, the Panel recommended that the Review contains an upfront statement explaining the issues related to the tobacco industry’s role in shaping and responding to public policy.
Imperial's response:
We agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain positive dialogue with all stakeholders. Along with other tobacco manufacturers, we are increasingly being excluded from engaging with regulators on regulatory proposals. We believe that regulators should draw on our commercial and technical knowledge and expertise when they are considering tobacco regulation. We will continue to seek constructive and effective dialogue with regulatory authorities and to work with them to develop proportionate and workable regulations ...
We understand that the Panel asked us to be more assertive in our positioning as a legitimate business that manufactures and distributes a legal product. We have sought to address this within the Introduction and through further communication of our corporate positions, many of which are on our website. We will give this further consideration.
To read more Stakeholder Panel comments click HERE. To view or download the complete Corporate Responsibility Review click HERE.
Rose and I have been invited to reprise our roles for this year's Review. If there are any issues you want me to raise I suggest you comment here or email Forest direct.
Reader Comments (15)
Approached a tobacco company a few years back with a comms idea that focused on corporate/social/heritage issues rather than on smoking but the attitude of the corporate (and I don't think it is much different with other corporates) was to duck and hide and declare that they just didn't want to put their heads up. This was a project that would have had no downside, and would have underscored CSR. But no. If the corporates are on the back foot then it is self-inflicted.
At last - the tobacco companies standing for for their rights as well as for their customers.
The tobacco companies have had a number of conundrums over the decades. The biggest one was when the Doll and Hill studies came out in the 1950s and 60s tobacco companies tried to waterdown and refute the lung cancer studies. We have all moved on from this and if you go to any of the major cigarette manufacturers and indeed Forest it is readily admitted that active smoking can be bad for you.
The major problem at the moment is that 13 years of nanny/bully Labour and its authoritarian apologists such as ASH, erudite dissent is muted or supressed and the "must of been paid for by big tobacco" ad hominems are sounding hollow. As Dave Goerlitz the Winston Man who worked for the anti smoking movement now actively briefs against ASH and the anti smoking movement as their tactics and approach are beneath contempt.
Now we have a more level playing field I hope tobacco companies will have the confidence to fight for their customer's rights a little more vigorously. The truth is a few keywords on Google and no one complain that they do not have access to it.
We done on the tobacco display ban, I hope you continue in this vein.
The human rights issue of smokers is a biggy in my opinion.
For example the plight of elderly smokers standing out in the cold for example.
Surely forcing the frail into an uncomfortable environment when no real solid evidence is available to support such acts is a human rights issue.
The rights of private property which have been trampled all over by anti smoking legislation is another.
The American tobacco companies have done marvels for their customers and consumers on the West Coast of the USA. They are to be commended on their proactive stance.
Outdoor smoking in any public park, square or plaza is a $500 fine on the spot for all of San Francisco and is being extended under state law to incorporate an outdoor ban anywhere within 30' of any building, whether public or private owned.
Many areas in San Francisco bay area have banned all smoking, indoors and oudoors, in all of their city limits. And some go on to ban it inside ones private home, cars and backyards.
Tobacco retailing is already illegal in drugstores in San Francisco and beginning this year the number of business licenses for tobacco vending will be cut in half and eventually decreased to no more than 500 venues citywide and with no renewals for businesses changing ownership, thus sticking current tobacconists with the inability to sell their businesses upon retirement, as the business licenses will not renew and the business becomes worthless. The only value will be to land developers buying for pennies on the dollar to create posh businesses like the fancy theme restaurants who can't earn a profit after six months in operation and the fickle non-smoking crowd leaves one to go on to the next new thing.
Government funded non-profits riding high on the hog with lots of taxpayer money, from a city on the verge of bankruptcy, makes sure to adorn nearly every square foot of San Francisco with anti-smoking warnings and denouncements by way of huge signs and plaques, this in addition to the ubiquitous and unavoidable no-smoking swastika in red and white adorning everything else.
So yes, the tobacco companies in the US have really done a lot to fight the growing tide of anti-tobacco prejudice in this country and broadcasting the fallacy of the SHS fear mongering and false studies.
Job well done standing up for consumers - Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds, both.
Three cheers and a hip-hip-hurrah!
I think one of the strongest arguments against the smoking ban in pub/bars etc (lets be frank, this is really the main issue with the ban we all have) is fighting for the rights of the bar owner to run a business as he sees fit. If he/she wants a business to cater for adult smokers - then he/she should be able to. Reading comments and blogs over the past couple of years, I think that this is the argument that gains most traction with the reasonable person - even non-smokers. If the tobacco companies help to fight their corner, we may be on to a winner. I recently had a small argument, in my role as a journalist, with the media spokesman for tobacco control at the World Health Organistion (Tim O'Leary) about the effect that bans were having on pubs and he said 'ha, but those figures you will find come from the tobacco companies' I countered and said, 'well maybe, but why should they be dismissed? They have a point of view and figures to show it, the health lobby have theirs. As far as I'm concerned, either numbers are equally believable or unbelievable'. I think he had never heard that before - and was a bit speechless. He then decided to turn down my offer of a live radio interview on the station I work on in Geneva. I ended up speaking to a pro ban and an anti ban - and it became an argument. Audio here:
http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/switzerland/national-smoking-ban-takes-effect-may-1st.shtml?18871
I been busting the nazis chops for the last 3 years and am one of their biggest enemies and they know it.I have been accused of being a worker of big tobacco,hell I dont even get a free pack of marlboros.........My question.......how about a free pack of marlboros sometime for me so I can at least tell the nazi smokefree bastards,I got something!
marlboro red 100's NON-FSC..........I hate those damnable things.
TOBACCO COMPANIES WORK HAND IN GLOVE WITH BIG PHARMA - THE SMOKER ALWAYS LOSES OUT..
Extract from Japan Tobacco International Annual Report:-
Pharmaceutical Business
FY 3/2009 Business Performance Summary
• Net sales: ¥56.8 billion, up 15.7%
• EBITDA: ¥ 4.9 billion, up ¥ 11.2 billion
• Operating income: ¥ 1.0 billion, up ¥10.7 billion
Business Performance
In the pharmaceutical business, JT is striving to steadily advance the development of compounds in the clinical development stage and enhance the R&D pipeline so as to increase the value of this business at an early date. While we have abandoned the development of anti-obesity compound JTT-553, anti-Hepatitis C compound JTK-652, anti-hyperuricemia compound JTT-552 and anti-diabetes compound JTT-651, the development of anti-HIV compound JTK-656 and anti-hyperphosphatemia compound
JTT-751 proceeded to the clinical trial stage, bringing the number of compounds currently in this stage to nine.
Moreover, we are exploring strategic opportunities to conclude licensing agreements to acquire rights to drugs developed by other companies, or give others rights to our drugs.
In September 2008, JT concluded a licensing agreement with Merck & Co. of the United States concerning anti-osteoporosis compound JTT-305, which gives Merck the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize this compound worldwide excluding Japan.
Meanwhile, Torii Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., a JT Group company, posted growth in sales of anti-HIV drug Truvada, the Dovonex ointment for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris, the Zefnart antifungal agent for external use and the Antebate topical adrenocortical hormone. However, as sales of the Stronger Neo-minophagen C agent for the treatment of liver and allergic diseases were terminated at the end of March 2008 and sales of the Futhan protease inhibitor declined due to a price revision that took effect in April 2008 and the promotion of the use of generic drugs, Torii Pharmaceutical’s net sales decreased.
In March 2009, Torii Pharmaceutical started selling the Remitch Capsule, an antipruritus drug for hemodialysis patients which was codeveloped by Toray Industries Inc., JT and Torii Pharmaceutical and for which Toray obtained approval for domestic production and sales in January 2009.
sum up the financial results of the JT Group’s pharmaceutical business, net sales increased by ¥7.7 billion (up 15.7%) from the previous year to ¥56.8 billion as a decline in Torii
Pharmaceutical’s sales was offset by the receipt of an upfront payment for the licensing of anti-osteoporosis compound JTT-305 and a milestone revenue associated with progress in the development of the JTT-705 compound for the treatment of dyslipidemia, which was licensed to Roche Switzerland) in October 2004. Operating income came to ¥1.0 billion (an improvement from a loss of ¥9.6 billion in the previous year).
WHY DON'T THE TOBACCO COMPANIES EVER REDUCE THE PRICE OF THEIR CIGARETTES TO UNDERMINE GOVERNMENT TAX REGIMES. IF THEY TARGETTED A REDUCTION IN THE UK FOR 3 MONTHS IT WOULD HIT THE GOVERNMENT HARD.
there is a section of society in the UK who through choice use a substance which is illegal and has never been legal.The governments response to these "problem" people is to provide them with a legal version which can be consumed in any public place.
This same government,and previous governments,who have made 100s of £billions from taxing tobacco,who have made millions from investing taxpayers cash in tobacco companies(as did local councils) and who continue to make billions in profit every year from smokers.These same governments who pander to criminals addicted to illegal substances chose to persecute the consumers of a legal product,those who sell this legal product and those who wrok for companies producing this legal product.Also to be noted is that legislation introduced by the UK government does not apply to government buildings or royal residences !!The lively hoods of pub,club and resteraunt owners have been affected and the evidence of all the closed pubs proves that the smoking ban has ruined lives.
I am in agreement with mark,they have removed the freedom of choice for business owners who should have the legal right to determine who enters their premises and what they do therein.
The solution was always simple...that is to have non smoking and smoking clubs,pubs,cafes etc.leaving everyone with an equal level of choice.That is the issue here the removal of rights,choice and freedom in what is supposed to be a democratic country
A couple of years ago, a victim of the 'Health Police', was fined fifty pounds for dropping a ciggie-end in the gutter in Dundee.
I roll my own fags, and after reading about that incident, I recycle my fag-ends back into my tobacco tin.
I'm getting rather pi'd off about, whatever government is in power,telling us what to do, for our health, yet still taking our money.
The tobacco companies need to target their lobbying to politicians on why it is wrong to denormalise such a large segment of the population. Why it is wrong to declare war on 20% of the adult population. They need to grow up and stand up. If they don't yet realize that there can be no compromise with the anti-smokers, they are fools. The end point being sought by the anti-smokers is the desctruction of their businesses entirely. They need to start taking a strong stand. Be a rallying point for their consumers - say that they and their customers have had enough of being society's lepers.
The tobacco companies don't give a damn about the rights and wrongs of demonising users of their products, except insofar as it affects their bottom line.
They knew in the 70s that the anti movement was moving up the gears and simply looked for a new market in the developing world.
Sorry, but a lot of talk from Big Tobacco & Co. and little to no action. All the money you had to spend on FI and elsewhere can now be spent on your customers. MPs are open to bribes, or is it the other way around?
We are specialize in Nike shox,this kind of shoes are suitable for sport ,when we do some outside execises ,we can prepare one ,it’s the newest fashion ,many star like it vey much ,if you like sport , if you are pursuing fashion ,we are the best ,and we have a lots styles for you to choose , Nike air Max 90 Nike air Max 2009 and so on …the high quality cheap max ,,there are a lot of air max wholesaler ..its worthy to purchase