British American Tobacco and Corporate Social Responsibility: damned if they do ...

Big news: companies use corporate social responsibility programmes to gain influence in political services and disguise the harm they do to society as a whole. In this study that is supported by Cancer Research UK and others the history of this industry's corporate responsibility programme is described in some detail.

I don't have any quarrel with the idea that companies undertake Corporate Responsibility for the purpose of gaining influence with powerful people. It seems the obvious thing for companies to do. Depending on who you listen to, all companies probably do damage at some level, whether to the environment, sea life, wildlife, the air, whatever. Companies also provide employment (in theory anyway) and seek to persuade that their activity does the economy and people more good than harm.

It takes a particularly vivid stretch of the imagination to conclude that only British American Tobacco has any ulterior motive behind its corporate social responsibility activities. The conclusion should be that this is normal corporate behaviour. Instead we get this:

In a detailed case study that involved searching BAT documents made publicly available as a result of litigation in the US (for the period, 1998-2000), the authors illustrate how the company used its corporate social responsibility programme in its dialogue with policymakers to influence the priorities of public and elected officials in the UK, encourage them to take notice of proposals that best suited the company (for example, to make regulation voluntary), and to revise the Government's concerns about whether the industry could be trusted to work in partnership. 

As usual, tobacco interests are endowed with all the evils of the market capitalism and every other industry in the world is ignored. The only corporate interest whose influence this study seeks to curb is the tobacco industry ... that is to say, apart from the other big bogeymen, alcohol and food. From the study itself:

This last point may help to explain why companies from other industrial sectors—specifically food and alcohol—are currently enjoying greater success in influencing public health policy in the UK through the government's Public Health Responsibility Deal [126].

This is really nothing to do with companies getting undue influence. It's about Cameron's love of playing with big business guys (but let's ignore all the other rich boys' games except for alcohol, food and tobacco). And it's about the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Finally, in highlighting the political dimensions of CSR, this paper underlines the importance of parties to the FCTC acting on the Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 [134]. Article 5.3 was specifically introduced to protect health policies from tobacco industry influence [135]. Its impact depends on governments implementing the Guidelines that comprise a number of Guiding Principles and Recommendations [135]. ... [etc]

If this study were really about corporate influence getting out of hand I would have some sympathy, but it's not: relying on industry papers made public during court action, it presents British American Tobacco manipulating government opinion with successful CSR campaigns, as though to suggest that only the tobacco industry were capable of such underhanded dealing.  No other industry is studied by way of comparison.

It does this in an attempt to justify further the aims of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as well as to criticise the UK's Public Health Responsibility Deal. It is policy-driven research, as usual. (Conflicts of interest are noted.)

Scotland, Malawi and tobacco ingredients ban

According to this BBC report, tobacco farmers in Malawi could lose 60 to 90 per cent of their livelihoods, if an ingredients ban is implemented. The Scotland Malawi Partnership (whose website sports a thumbnail picture of Jack McConnell, former First Minster, whose main claim to fame was introducing the smoking ban) has operated since 2004, but it remains to be seen whether it will offer any support to Malawi in the defence of its tobacco growers. Working mostly with non-government organisations, it acknowledges that 'Malawians know best (a) ... (b) what challenges and issues there are in Malawian civil society; and (c) what mechanisms or interventions could help address these challenges'. Will this reasoning apply to anyone who wants to defend the tobacco plantations?

And does the Scotland Malawi Partnership make any attempt to work with official bodies that will represent the government viewpoint, as well as NGOs?

A quick look at the Scotland/Malawi links reveals a concern for child labour in Malawi's tobacco plantations, touched on here. This is a typical anti-smoking take on any tobacco industry: the fact is that child labour occurs everywhere and in any occupation in which children are vulnerable.  UNICEF tells us that one in six of the world's children is engaged in child labour, so talking of child labour as if it were specific to tobacco plantations is dishonest (or naive), but what is expected of reporters today. If it is common in Malawi, this is because of Malawi's heavy reliance on tobacco. Destroying Malawi's staple industry will do nothing for the welfare of its children.

So has Scotland any plans to address the issue of the tobacco industry in Malawi? Well, yes it has. Is it likely to help tobacco growers' interests? Probably not: the MSPs Michael Matheson (SNP) and Karen Gillon (Scottish Labour) have buried their differences to invite us to this meeting, both supporters of anti-smoking legislation. Speakers are Dr Jeff Collin and Dr Nathaniel Wander of Edinburgh University, both named as external co-workers of Professor Anna Gilmore.  It is hard to imagine that this meeting will agree to help Malawi to defend tobacco farmers against the ambitions of the global tobacco control community.