Do you think tobacco companies care about social responsibility? Does it sound paradoxical?
Should they publish CSR reports... at all?
verily they have nothing to do with it or with any social care strategy. Their material way of thinking and behaving is their only and sole priority.
Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz Amjed L. Jabbar agreed!
Personally, it's hard to understand the company that sells a harmful product and at the same time claims to be socially responsible. I find it discourteous and unethical
I think they operate their companies under the country's law and pay taxes. Generally taxes in such productions are imposed heavy and so its price seems to be high. Despite it, many people used to take it. However, on the one hand, they may claim about social responsibility providing money to the community; on the others, they are distributing the harm/death. So the question obviously may be raised by its peculiar type of social responsibility!!!
Laws are what make companies stick to social responsibility. It requires deterrent penalties، In order for companies to adhere.
Watching how to look. On the one hand, this is business
development, economic recovery, ... taxes. On the other hand,
the smoker develops his business, boosts the economy ...
And when everyone quits smoking, the question will be settled,
and people will become less ill with not good diseases
They care. 90% of them put up an advert telling people that 'smokers are liable to die young' and 'smoke responsibly'
I believe they care about their money.
They have no social responsibility - they are socially dangerous.
Deepak Chaudhary , exactly! At the end of the day, money is spent, and "they MAY claim about social responsibility as they provide money to the community". Besides, as Peterson K. Ozili mentioned " 90% of them put up an advert telling people that 'smokers are liable to die young' and 'smoke responsibly' ", so technically it can count as caring. From a broader perspective, its also true that the tobacco industry is large taxpayer, hence, it "contributes to the national economy" as noted by Rabin Thapa Terekh Alexandr M. ).
Lastly, "attention to social responsibility is the duty of the community itself" (Mukhlif M.S.
), and ideally "when everyone quits smoking, the question will be settled, and people will become less ill with not good diseases as mentioned by Terekh Alexandr M.However, taking into consideration the fact that all these warning stickers/labels are a must/required for tobacco producers to implement*, and that the core product itself is harmful, it raises huge doubt regarding their socially responsible nature. As Mundher Alsaaidi منذر السعيدي said, it seems that "laws are what make companies stick to social responsibility..." and "warning labels are just an obligation" (صلاح رسول حمزة السلطاني
).In my perspective, I'm inclined to think that "they may claim that they do, but in fact, they do not", "they seem to be socially dangerous" as it was noted by Omar H. Abdalla
and Dimitri Ketchakmadze*Warning labels were seen as a threat to maximizing profit and the tobacco industry was against using them from the beginning.
Interesting opinions; thank you all for your contribution.
No they don't. To make it worse they are hypocritical by that warning they put claiming that excessive consumption of tobacco is not good for your health. Very bad especially because of smoking's associated secondary effects.
Not directly related to the topic but, It's also interesting how much money is spent by the healthcare system to treat diseases caused by smoking and how much money is generated through taxation of the tobacco industry players, as well as the money spent by them for CSR activities. Does it worth it?
Secondary effects/passive smoking is another important issue, I agree Joan Nyika
Davit, I think the question you ask warrants or may be suggestive of the fact that companies should publish data indicating how committed they are to CSR. However, the publication of the data is one thing whereas the actual practices and procedures that firms use to demonstrate the extent and scale of their CSR commitment and engagement on a continuous and consistent basis could be another. Therefore, you may end up having a situation where the pressure for companies to publish CSR data could lead to a dichotomy between what is said on paper (i.e. rhetoric) and what is actually happening in practice (i.e. reality). Interesting.
Today's world is between the two poles of the health system and the capitalist system. On the one hand, in the health system, efforts are made to pay attention to people's health. In the economic system, for the benefit of companies and multinational companies. In this struggle, the capitalist system and money win.
When the health system depends on the financial resources of countries that are constantly threatening to leave the global health system in order to survive? Undoubtedly, tobacco companies will never be required to submit health reports.
Under this pandemic situation of Covid19 Tobacco forms a Toxic layer on lungs .
So when we smoke it means that we are one step foroward to attack of this virus due to loss of Immunity with weak lungs .
Dear John Mendy , I totally understand your point of view but I should say that the purpose of the question is just straightforward - "do you think if tobacco companies care about social responsibility or no" - without any intention to "be suggestive of the fact that companies should publish data indicating how committed they are to CSR". Contrary, I'm pretty skeptical concerning CSR reports, I don't really find it as the cardinal measure for judging any particular firm's socially responsible behavior.
In general, we know they sell a product that is harmful to society, and at the same time, they try to help society (be socially responsible). Among other methods and/or tools, they employ CSR reporting to show their socially responsible nature. As so, the second part of the question (or second question) " Should they publish CSR reports... at all?" is more like: If their core business activity (selling a harmful product) is opposite of doing good, how/why they dare or claim to be socially responsible through CSR reporting?
Accordingly, I found it interesting and try to understand what are your opinions regarding this issue. Best wishes dear John Mendy , and thanks for interesting insights!
I think their material way of thinking and behaving is their only and sole priority.
Dear Davit Belkania ,
I hate the concept of smoking as much as most of your respondents. Sure they want to make money, but which business doesn't? However, I think it is unfair to consider all tobacco companies to be unethical and and uncaring. I believe that they are not given a fair chance to prove that they can be socially responsible, partly because they are not allowed to advertise anymore. Big tobacco used to be major sponsors of sports events and sports teams, especially in F1 racing; this is something they cannot do anymore. Regulations have forced them to become invisible. With all the pressure on tobacco companies and smokers, their markets are declining and they probably also have to fight for survival. Regarding your question, I don't think that one can generalize and say that none of the tobacco companies care about social responsibility. There will be unscrupulous companies amongst them, but certainly not all. Much has changed in their environment and also in our knowledge of the impacts of smoking on health. This has resulted in highly regarded tobacco companies of 30 years ago, now being viewed as pariahs.
Yes, they should continue to publish CSR reports, as this forces them to be semi-responsible.
Kind regards, Jurie
Dear Davit Belkania,
Tobacco companies are no different from all other companies that respond to a market need. We could say that food companies selling processed food harm our health through sugar, additives, colorants and so on. But we do not say they should not publish CSR reports at all. We could argue similarly for alcohol companies, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, the chemical industry, the automobile industry (cars kill millions every year globally), and so on. Ηow about the arms industry? Arms are harmful but governments spend billions for arms. So, my point is that CSR reports should continue to be published by all companies. The key question is to what degree these reports are close to the real practice of these companies. There is also another question. What is the responsibility of us all (as citizens and consumers) to make responsible use of all products the market provides us?
Dear Jurie Steyn , thank you for your participation. As I mentioned above, I cannot disagree with the fact that technically they may claim to be socially responsible as far as they spend money/effort on the community they serve. But what triggers me to be skeptical regarding this issue is the harm they give to society, their core product is simply harmful and as any business they try to increase their sales, meaning that harm can be more... And engaging in CSR activities can mitigate problems like bad reputation/publicity, bad practices or incidents/experiences, etc.
Besides, I think we agree that if there is no benefit from being socially responsible, mostly they (like any other business) will not do it because it represents an extra cost. Accordingly, I think that it is just a marketing tool to increase profitability and not caring.
Just a rough example (don’t judge too hard): Let’s think about a person who steals money every day from your shop (so he harms your business), but at the same time (s)he gives you some of it back in the form of donation or purchase. Do you consider this person as caring? Would you like to keep him around (as a customer and/or donor)? Do you think he cares about you? Personally, I think s(he) does not.
In our case, we are talking about human health/life that is far more important than money. I perfectly realize that smokers voluntarily take risks of smoking... and before judging tobacco companies they simply should stop smoking (no demand for cigarettes = no sales = less harm). But I believe we need some push, constraints, rules, regulations imposed by others to help us overcome some problems. Accordingly, pressure by strict government regulations imposed on the tobacco industry seems legit/right for me (at least as an effort to mitigate the severeness of the problem).
Besides, it will be nice of you if you share your opinion regarding the following: Would you sell a product that potentially kills your customers and consider yourself caring or socially responsible because you give some of your profits back to society? Does money value more than the health/life of a human?
Dear Athanasios G. Chymis , I got your point. Of course, it can apply to other industries/businesses as well. There is a large number of lawsuits against businesses from other industries that try to hide their bad practices (e.g. manipulating with words to hide sugar content, child labor, etc.) Society criticizes them all when information about their bad practices are revealed. We can express opinions about other businesses as well. Will be more interesting dear Athanasios G. Chymis .
Thank you for valuable insights, its pleasure to hear different views.
Dear Davit Belkania ,
Thanks for a thought provoking question!
I worked in the petrochemical industry many years ago. One of my plants produced phenol, different cresols and a range of higher boiling tar acids. These products are all highly hazardous, and require extreme care during the production, transport and use thereof. So, effectively, I produced and sold a product that could potentially kill my customers. The customers, in turn, converted these dangerous products into many useful products, from anti-septics, to resins, to polycarbonate plastics. However, we sold these products with a suitably detailed material safety data sheet (MSDS) which highlighted the dangers, and recommended proper medical treatment for exposure to the chemicals. We also ensured that the customer understood these MSDSs and that they were correctly equipped to handle the products. In short, we made sure that the purchaser understood the dangers of what they were buying. My parent company produced a CSR report and made great contributions to society, education, and sport.
This is very different from a situation where you knowingly produce and sell a product without 1) determining what the inherent dangers associated with the product are, and/or 2) not sharing this information with potential buyers. To me, there is nothing worse than selling a harmful product without informing the buyer about the associated dangers and/or side effects.
So, it is not really about the danger of the product, but rather about whether you share this information openly. Companies and people who deliberately hide knowledge about the dangers of the products they sell definitely place more value on money than human life. Some may even try to pose as responsible corporate citizens by supporting their communities and publishing glossy CSR reports.
Tobacco companies are obliged to print health warnings on everyone of their products. This means that they inform their buyers about the dangers of smoking, albeit unwillingly, because this will detract from sales.
Thanks for a thought provoking question!
Kind regards, Jurie
Dear Jurie Steyn I highly appreciate your professionalism and sense of responsibility to provide as detailed information as possible regarding the danger of the product. Somehow I relate your professional experience to the ones described in Porter (1995) - Green and competitive.
Once again, thanks for your comments, knowledge, experience that you share with us. Truly insightful. Best wishes!
Tobacco companies may indeed contribute to society, education and sport, as pointed out by Jurie Steyn. However, they do that to promote their public image. If they really cared about social responsibility, they wouldn't produce reports claiming massive job losses and decline of foreign exchange earnings to lobby developing countries to oppose global tobacco control measures. Shouldn't we all be encouraging developing countries to switch to other export crops?
Dear Oswell Namasasu , as you can see from previous comments we are on the same page here, I agree with you.
However, please let me ask you: what do you think from another perspective? what can be some strong arguments from the tobacco industry to oppose your/our opinion regarding "they do that to promote their public image" or as I mentioned before " I think that it is just a marketing tool to increase profitability and not caring"?
P.S. I am extremely curious about opposing arguments to my current perception regarding tobacco industry players and their socially responsible nature.
Dear Davit Belkania, it is not easy to find defensible arguments that tobacco companies can be socially responsible, short of closing down altogether. Their claims that smoking does not actually cause cancer, that nicotine is not addictive, that their marketing does not deliberately target children but promotes positive values such as bravery, glamour and intelligence, that second hand smoke is harmless, that they promote growth in developing economies are all hollow. They have even been accused of bribing some scientists to water down their reports on the effects of tobacco smoking.
I do not think so....Left for me...every tobacco company would be closed down
It is up to the government to define limits on tobacco consumption: taxes, advertising bans and warning messages in each pack. The total ban on smoking is inoperative - as seen in the United States' 1930s Prohibition of alcohol.
They care about sales and profits. Only because of regulations by Government they were forced to pull back.
Philip Morris International (PMI) is one of those companies that spent hundreds of millions on programs to fight underage smoking, provide incentives to retailers to keep cigarettes behind the counter; besides, PMI puts enormous effort into creating recruitment programs. However, there was an incident when the public did not accept the honoring PMI for its socially responsible behavior. e.g. Western Michigan University was heavily criticized by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for its decision to honor Philip Morris USA Inc. as its employer of the year. (Palazzo & Richter, 2005, p. 391). The act of the public in this particular case can discourage tobacco industry players from farther donations, spendings to support society.
Considering the above-mentioned case, it's interesting whether the public should continue opposing or accept them as a socially responsible company. What's your opinion?
P.S. In fact American tobacco company Altria is the one who voluntarily stopped advertising its products. Was it truly socially responsible behavior or a strategic decision to enhance positive publicity?
Tobacco manufacturers are not only not socially responsible, but have been lobbying for decades with spurious arguments in the sole interest of their shareholders.
1. No. A ellas se les tiene que obligar a interesarse por las consecuencias de su negocio, no lo hacen voluntariamente.
2. Si. Porque todas las empresas deberían hacerlo, así como publican sus informes financieros. Estas empresas en particular deben informar sobre materias primas que añaden al tabaco para influir en el consumo.
3. El tabaco se consume desde hace muchísimos siglos. Es una costumbre de los seres humanos, lo que pasa es que ahora sabemos de los perjuicios que trae esa costumbre, pero es un problema individual, de cada persona, consumir o no. Pero las compañías tabacaleras no deben convertir en adictas a las personas que quieren consumir añadiendo materiales adictivos.
In recent years, a debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged. Pressure from civil society and the reversal of the balance of power between multinational companies and governments has forced many companies to manage the externalities of their activities in the social and environmental fields more effectively. The resulting social commitment is the subject of the communication appearing in their social responsibility or sustainable development reports.
Thus, adopting the wave of corporate social responsibility (CSR), tobacco companies tried to gain acceptance as responsible and socially responsible. However, this is not possible for two reasons. First, the product that the tobacco industry sells is deadly and is not compatible with the notion of not doing harm to be a responsible citizen. Second, the behavior of tobacco companies is not citizen, this being illustrated by four examples: a science strategy founded against pseudo-science, the seduction of young smokers, political lobbying and obtaining consumers in new markets.
Agree with Dimitri Ketchakmadze, Tobacco companies make money out of blood and tears, although it is one of the most profitable industries … The American tobacco companies have used even more questionable methods to increase their influence overseas... Saloojee, Y., & Dagli, E. (2000). Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 902-910.
...Deceitful practices...Otañez, M., & Glantz, S. A. (2011). Social responsibility in tobacco production? Tobacco companies' use of green supply chains to obscure the real costs of tobacco farming. Tobacco control, 20(6), 403-411.
There are some unearthened litigation against tobacco companies as well... Daynard, R. A., Bates, C., & Francey, N. (2000). Tobacco litigation worldwide. Bmj, 320(7227), 111-113.
... This article outlines how the tobacco industry has undermined tobacco control efforts in Lebanon since the early 1970s. ... Nakkash, R., & Lee, K. (2009). The tobacco industry’s thwarting of marketing restrictions and health warnings in Lebanon. Tobacco Control, 18(4), 310-316.
I think this is context specific. In some countries the Tobacco companies do play a role of social responsibility and in some the activity may be minimal or even unheard of......
Not at all, in fact tobacco companies are in total conflict of interest with the highest social responsibility called good health.
Dear @ ديميتري كيتشاكمادزي
You put your finger on the wound, dear colleague
Please have a look at the following links:
Article Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: Ho...
Article CSR activity of tobacco companies in Indonesia: Is it a genu...
Please go through the link below for better insight.
Article Tobacco Industry Use of Corporate Social Responsibility Tact...
No tobacco companies does not care about social responsibility. They only care about increasing its circulation and gaining profitability.
Interesting question Davit Belkania . Would be interested to know as well.
Increasingly consumers, employees and managers expect companies, particularly large multinationals, to go beyond their traditional role of creating, producing, packaging and selling—for a profit. In the public’s view, job creation and tax paying no longer suffice as private sector’s sole contribution to society. The boom of socially responsible investment (SRI) products attest to this trend as investors express their concerns and make their social and ethical stands known to the companies they invest in and patronize. Socially responsible investors include individuals, corporations, universities, hospitals, foundations, and insurance companies, pension funds, non-profit organizations, churches and synagogues. Funds may exclude certain products or practices such as alcohol, weapons, pollution, animal testing or gambling; or they may seek to actively identify positive aspects of companies that adopt sound policies for environmental protection, fair employment practices, community and labor relations, for example. The common denominator among the vast majority of ethical or socially responsible investment policies and products is the exclusion of tobacco companies in their portfolios. i Well-planned and well-managed philanthropy, from sponsoring music, film and art festivals to creating education programs for the disadvantaged to protecting the environment, in the name of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a necessary element in virtually every large corporation’s business plan
According to some classification systems of product types, stimulants, ie cigarettes, alcohol and other stimulants, are included in the category of anti-products that generate high social harm. The deterioration of the health of the society caused by drugs reduces the daily functioning and work efficiency of people employed in companies, enterprises and corporations. In addition, huge financial resources allocated from the state public finance system for the treatment of illnesses caused by the use of stimulants, the payment of compensation for people who have suffered accidents and deaths caused, for example, by driving under the influence, after taking drugs, etc., may exceed tax revenues, excise duties sent to the budget central state from the taxation of sale and production of stimulants. Only companies producing stimulants benefit from the production and sale of stimulants. Therefore, the production and sale of stimulants has nothing to do with business ethics and corporate social responsibility.
Best regards, Stay healthy!
Dariusz Prokopowicz
If they did, they would cease their operations. But instead, they try to find new markets to exploit, when they have a hard time with anti-tobacco sentiments in one market or another.
Good question, Dr Davit Belkania
I think people are aware, now, about the dangers of smoking, but in the past, there was less understanding:
https://www.news24.com/health24/Medical/Stop-smoking/News/9-reasons-why-many-people-started-smoking-in-the-past-20180703-3
This link states that doctors encouraged adolescents to smoke.
Or advocated one brand of cigarettes over another:
https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
These articles are interesting:
Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
Brandt, A. M. (2012). Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. American journal of public health, 102(1), 63-71.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
Wipfli, H., & Samet, J. M. (2016). One hundred years in the making: the global tobacco epidemic. Annual review of public health, 37, 149-166.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021850
They do. If your question borders on predisposing the general public to a number infections and diseases, then I am sorry, it cannot be helped. The same could be asked of distilleries and wineries. Choices are to be made by man. Man is supposed to be in control of these exposures that threaten their health and not the other way around. The seeming helplessness of man in the face of tobacco companies is not tenable, in the least.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Cigarette_Smoking_is_injurious_to_health-A_Statutary_Warning-updated_for_the_Pandemic_Covid
Absolutely not and it's foolish for anyone to think otherwise. Revenue is their sole concern. With time however, they've learned to set aside a small fraction of their profit for so-called "community services" in order feign interest in social issues. That in turn is primarily to avoid being dragged to courts and having limitations imposed on them. It's an economic construct that feeds off the vulnerability and well-being of people that takes advantage of the loop holes present in our legal systems. In needs to stop.
No, they do not. They only care about the money they make out of smokers pockets
Tobacco companies can not think of good health. They earn at the cost of Health of poor and innocent people. Just imagine they contribute to about 50% of all NCDs due to tobacco use
No they do not. Also those who smoke are to be blamed because after seeing the warning on the pack they still go ahead to smoke
Tobacco companies are the same as companies manufacturing weapons and should be allowed to operate following the laid down regulations.
To some extent they do. that is the reason for their slogan (tobacco smokers are liable to die young)
I think all they care about is their money, though there is a clause on the packs.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication