Archive for June 9th, 2009
Philip Morris’ $$$
This is a classic article on Philip Morris and their previous attempts at Corporate Social Responsiblity. While their name may have changed and the individuals at PM may be different – it is important to remember that previous behaviour is often the best indicator of future behaviour.
Philip Morris Money
ROBERT DREYFUSS | November 30, 2002
In Virginia, fresh-faced, environmentally minded schoolchildren gather biological samples and test water quality in rivers and
waterways, part of the Izaak Walton League’s Save Our Streams initiative. In Chicago, amid Tai Chi classes and body massages,
families with young children enjoy performance art and teenagers flock to an all-night “rave,” all part of the Museum of
Contemporary Art’s Summer Solstice weekend. In Minnesota hundreds of children with HIV or AIDS come together each year at
Camp Heartland, where they can “escape the isolation and misunderstanding they so often face because of this illness.” And all of
these kids can thank the caring people at Philip Morris.
It might raise eyebrows that children and youth engage in otherwise worthwhile activities while carrying brochures and leaflets
bearing the Philip Morris logo, but these and scores of other programs–ranging from battered women’s shelters to disaster relief
programs to scholarships for African-American students at black colleges–are important parts of an aggressive public relations
campaign by the world’s largest maker of cigarettes. During 1999 Philip Morris spent more than $60 million on things like hunger
relief, domestic violence programs, and support of the fine arts, including some of the nation’s leading museums and dance
companies. Though the company has used its tobacco profits to support charitable and educational works for decades, what’s new
now is that its $60-million corporate giving program is suddenly being dwarfed by a $100-million-a-year image-rebuilding campaign
launched last fall, which spotlights the company’s goodwill efforts. Leading the way are Philip Morris-sponsored television
commercials touting the firm’s good deeds, under the slogan: “Working to make a difference. The people of Philip Morris.” In the
ads, actors play ordinary Americans engaged in volunteer teaching and assisting victims of floods.
“It may be a longer-term effort, but we feel this is the right way to go,” says Karen Brosius, director of corporate contributions for
Philip Morris. “We have to redefine Philip Morris for the twenty-first century.”
Critics, including anti-tobacco activists and public health executives, ridicule the company’s effort to rehabilitate itself in the public
eye. “They’re taking blood money and using it to assuage people’s hostility to their company,” says Cliff Douglas, an attorney who’s
battled tobacco companies for years. “That money comes off the backs of millions of addicted smokers. It’s almost too sickening to
comment on.”
At the same time, however, Philip Morris’s critics don’t dismiss the impact that the effort could have. “It has the potential to work, to
pay off,” says Bill Novelli, a former public relations executive and president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “It won’t work
overnight,” he says. “But they’re persistent, they’re smart, and they’re rich.”
For a decade, of course, Philip Morris and the rest of the tobacco industry have been engaged in a literal fight for survival. They’ve
battled individual lawsuits from injured smokers, class action cases, and government-backed suits by dozens of states and the
Department of Justice seeking to win back taxpayer money spent caring for sick and dying smokers. They’ve beaten back much state
and federal legislation aimed at curbing youth smoking and raising taxes on cigarettes, and so far they’ve used the courts to block a
regulatory push by the Food and Drug Administration. And they’ve fought a wave of actions to ban smoking in public places.
In fighting on so many fronts, the industry has spread its cash far beyond its traditional campaign contributions and large infusions of
soft money to the Republican Party. In Washington, in state capitals, and even down to the city and county levels, the tobacco
companies have expended vast resources on lobbying. They’ve supported whole armies of attorneys, consultants, and expert
witnesses. They’ve lavishly funded political allies, ranging from conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation to liberal groups like the American Civil
Liberties Union. They’ve sponsored sports events, from airy Virginia Slims tennis tournaments to gritty NASCAR races. And
recently, worried about increasing restrictions on tobacco advertising, they’ve funded the start-up of entirely new, corporate-
sponsored magazines, in which, of course, they impose no advertising restrictions on themselves.
The money Philip Morris spends on charitable, educational, and cultural institutions may not look like it’s part of that same war chest.
But antismoking activists say that the company’s corporate giving program is an integral part of its defense strategy. Not only do such
contributions provide Philip Morris with a veneer of respectability, but critics worry that by carefully choosing the recipients of
million-dollar grants the company is quietly buying the neutrality and, in some cases, the grudging support of important parts of the
American body politic.
“They’re buying silence,” says Douglas. “For years, the health community, in its effort to combat tobacco, has sought the buy-in of
many affected communities and has had great difficulty enlisting their support.” Citing Philip Morris contributions over the years to
groups like the NAACP, the Urban League, the National Organization for Women, the National Council of La Raza, and many
others, Douglas says, “Many of them were either silent or provided testimony to Congress opposing tobacco-control legislation.”
Further, Philip Morris’s charitable giving is skewed significantly toward groups that represent parts of the population specifically
targeted by cigarette marketers, especially women and minorities. These are populations whose representatives could have been
expected to ally with the tobacco industry’s opponents, but that hasn’t happened. In 1999, for instance, Philip Morris provided major
support to the Dance Theater of Harlem and the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater as well as to the United Negro College Fund,
the American Indian College Fund, and the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund. “They have befriended minority groups for a long
time,” Novelli says. “And they’re getting a lot for their money there.”
Antismoking groups have tried for years to convince recipients not to take money from the tobacco industry, with varying success.
“In the public health community, there is virtually a united front against the idea of taking money from Philip Morris,” says Joel
Spivak of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “We say, ‘You shouldn’t take money from an organization that does so much harm.’
But I’d be lying to you if I said it was an easy sell. And Philip Morris knows that.”
An ace in the hole for Philip Morris is its long-standing relationship with the highbrow fine arts community. For decades the
company has provided substantial support to leading institutions like New York’s Whitney Museum of American Art and the
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Philip Morris’s partnership with the Whitney began in 1967, perhaps not coincidentally just after
the first report of the U.S. surgeon general on the cancercausing nature of tobacco smoke. In 1983 the two established the Whitney
Museum of American Art at Philip Morris, housed in the tobacco company’s New York world headquarters. Over the years, the
company has funneled millions of dollars to icons of the New York cultural establishment, including the Lincoln Center–which in
the 1980s handed out cigarettes in bags of favors to patrons–the Joffrey Ballet, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the American Ballet
Theater, and the Brooklyn Museum of Art, among others.
Page 2 of 3
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=philip_morris_money
On occasion, there’s been an explicit quid pro quo. In 1994, when the New York City Council was considering restrictions on
smoking in public places, Philip Morris threatened to leave the city–taking its arts funding with it–and the company leaned on
grantees to join it in opposing the bill; some did. And when Philip Morris tried to wrap itself in the Bill of Rights by sponsoring a
nationwide celebration of that constitutional document, among those appearing prominently in the company’s campaign was Judith
Jamison, artistic director of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater.
By and large, the beneficiaries of Philip Morris’s largesse say that they have no qualms about taking money from America’s most
vilified corporation, and they vehemently deny being influenced in any way by its support. Paul Hansen, executive director of the
Izaak Walton League, says bluntly, “The Philip Morris people have never asked us for squat.” At the American Farmland Trust,
whose research is partly funded by Philip Morris, a spokesman says, “They have been a very generous funder over the years, and
there are no strings attached.”
That’s not to say that there’s no controversy over the company’s donations. Case in point: Philip Morris’s support for battered
women’s shelters, lately one of its highest-profile campaigns. Together with the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Philip
Morris created a program called Doors of Hope. Beginning with $1 million in 1998, the program expanded this year to $2.5 million,
funneled to 180 organizations across the country. The campaign also took flight in glossy, two-page advertisements in magazines like
George and Vanity Fair, in which battered women told moving stories about being survivors of domestic violence. According to
Karen Brosius, who oversees the program, Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible himself “felt this was one area in which we could
really make a difference.”
Elaine Hughes, who serves on the board of directors of the National Network, recognizes the stigma associated with money from
Philip Morris, but defends taking the money. “It’s very difficult, when you get into the corporate world, to avoid tainted money,” she
says. “I’m comfortable with it. But we have been criticized for it.” Still, says Hughes, Philip Morris “provides money that battered
women’s shelters could not otherwise get.” Under the program, the National Network reviews grant applications from around the
country and then “basically … tells Philip Morris who to give the money to.”
That worries Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, another major player in the
movement. Last year the coalition’s board of directors voted not to participate in Philip Morris’s domestic violence program. “The
amount of money Philip Morris could give could not equal the damage it could do,” says Smith, adding that coalition members
objected to the company’s money “because cigarette companies have been dishonest, lying to the public, and marketing to children.”
After Philip Morris paid for a full-page ad announcing its Doors of Hope initiative on the inside cover of the program handed out at
the coalition’s annual meeting last year, says Smith, “Some members protested, and we announced that those who objected could tear
the covers off the program. Quite a few tore their covers off. You could hear ripping all over the place.”
the covers off the program. Quite a few tore their covers off. You could hear ripping all over the place.”
The most common defense for taking money from tobacco companies is the one offered by Hughes at the National Network: that
taking money from just about any corporation carries some sort of stigma. Tom Metzger, spokesman for the National AIDS Fund,
uses that argument to defend his organization’s partnership with Philip Morris in a program called Positive Helpings, which provides
nourishing food to people with AIDS. Citing the fact that Philip Morris’s Kraft subsidiary produces foods, Metzger says, “Nothing’s
more benign than Jell-O. When you look at any multinational, you will find critics of something they produce.”
Yet it’s hard to escape the notion that somehow cigarette makers are in a class by themselves, having achieved virtual pariah status.
The idea that an organization involved with a deadly disease like HIV or AIDS would welcome money from a company whose
product kills far more people than AIDS does horrifies John Garrison, CEO of the American Lung Association. “My advice to the
AIDS people would be to refuse the money,” he says. While other industries and corporations might be criticized for one reason or
another, says Garrison, “Nobody else is killing 430,000 people a year.”
Despite the obvious irony, Garrison thinks that the company may be able to postpone its day of reckoning long enough to allow it to
secure its future in other ways. “What Philip Morris is trying to do,” says Garrison, “is to buy its image the way it buys elected
officials, and hold the line here in the United States while they build markets overseas.”
“Philip Morris is extremely good at strategic thinking, and they are taking the long view here,” says Bill Novelli of the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids. Not long ago, he says, in an opinion poll taken by Harris Interactive, Philip Morris finished 10th out of 10
among companies about whom Americans had a negative impression. “They can’t climb out of that hole overnight,” he says. “But
they’re trying to buy some respectability.”
And despite the long odds, it’s not impossible that Philip Morris’s campaign could succeed in restoring a modicum of acceptance for
the company–or at least help it survive until the industry can secure a stronger market position in Russia, China, and the developing
countries. Yes, there is a surreal quality to Philip Morris’s charm offensive, sort of a Springtime for Hitler unreality about the
company’s straightforward effort to resurrect itself. Yes, after so many years without television commercials for cigarettes, it’s
startling to see Philip Morris’s signature on the boob tube once again. And, yes, it’s easy to laugh at the fact that the company is
spending more money telling people about its good works than on the good works themselves. But in all, the campaign is an
important reminder that the tobacco industry, though down, is not out. ¤
Scotland – Tobacco Industry should disclose its advertising budget
Anti-smoking group calls for industry to show advertising costs – Edinburgh Evening News
June 10, 2009
Tobacco companies should be forced to publish their spending on advertising and promotion, a city charity has said.
Anti-smoking lobbying group ASH said since billboard advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products was banned in 2003, large organisations have found other ways of selling their brand.
Chief executive Sheila Duffy said the Scottish Government should take steps to monitor the spending to prevent the number of new smokers in the country.
“They (tobacco companies] need to find new customers to replace the 49,000 smokers who will quit or die every year,” she said.
“One of the ways to do that is through large promotional displays that take pride of place in our shops, garages and supermarkets.”
Source: Edinburgh Evening News
Province Cancels Youth Programs
Youth prevention program cancelled by the province – The Walkerton Herald-Times
June 10, 2009
John McPhee
There will be a dramatic increase in young people smoking over the next few years, according to two local youth peer leaders.
Walkerton District Secondary School students Autumn Hachey and Nathan Wise are peer leaders in the province’s Youth Action Alliance program. Along with Luke Albert and two students at John Diefenbaker Secondary School in Hanover, they educate other youth and younger students on the dangers of smoking and other important issues such as alcohol abuse, gambling, mental and physical health.
Last week the the Grey Bruce Health Unit received notice that the program will be cancelled effective Aug. 31. And that has angered them.
“This is the stupidest decision a government could ever make,” Hachey told The WHT Monday.
“We were outraged,” Wise said in a later interview.
Both said the number of young people who take up smoking will “definitely go up” as a direct result of the program’s cancellation.
“Youth talking to youth gets the message across. They don’t listen to adults,” Hachey said, and noted the presentations she and her colleagues have done about smoking are much more popular than the “boring presentations” done in the past by health officials.
“We bring excitement and energy to the presentations, she said. “We get youth engaged.”
Wise said he believes the program makes a difference. “We reach them on an individual level. We got people knowing about how to be healthy. We got them to act.”
A busy Grade 12 student who “shuffled a few things around” including other part-time jobs and tutoring, Wise said he stayed with the program despite other responsibilities. “I wouldn’t have stayed if it didn’t work.”
A peer leader works up to 20 hours every two weeks. Wise said there is nothing to replace the program except “maybe a day spent in health class”.
The program was launched in 2005 to support youth development, prevent children and youth from starting and becoming addicted to tobacco products, and to advocate for the elimination of involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke.
The program mandate was recently expanded to promote healthy living. The cuts affect two full-time youth advisors and 20 part-time youth working in various communiti es across Grey Bruce.
“This will be a huge loss to communities across Grey Bruce where peer leaders and youth advisors have been involved in everything from advocating for smoke-free sports and recreation policies, to participating on local municipal committees promoting physical activity,” said Medical Officer of Health Dr. Hazel Lynn. “The program has been particularly effective in Grey Bruce where the large rural area and smaller communities limit job and training opportunities for youth.”
The annual high school grants program for smoking prevention was also cut, affecting 14 high schools across Grey Bruce. For almost half of the high schools in Ontario, the grant was the only tobacco control activity done in their school. It is estimated that 90 per cent of smokers start before the age of 18.
Wise said the numbers could get much worse as elementary students advance into high school.
“They are most impressionable at that age, they won’t get the message and will be pressured by their friends,” he said.
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Progressive Conservative MP Bill Murdoch has started a petition to save the program.
“The YAA is working for the Grey Bruce Health Unit,” he said in a news release. “The Ministry of Health Promotions is only looking at how the program has not worked in the urban areas. But it is working in rural areas.”
Huron-Bruce Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell said she, too was concerned about the cancellation of the program. “We’re working with the Ministry to see what we can do, I’m concerned too,” she said, noting that the government hasn’t developed a replacement for the program as yet. “It should have been developed first and it should have been communicated,” Mitchell said.
Hachey worries about the future for younger students without peer leaders to help them stay clear of smoking. “The tobacco industry is probably having a party,” she said.
Source: The Walkerton Herald-Times
