Tobacco Companies
What do you think about tobacco companies such as PM and BAT? Obviously, everyone will say that they do harm the society with their products, and therefore you don't like them.
Now, I know this is true (and I also confirm this as a smoker) BUT, don't we react a bit too impulsive, don't we have too many prejudices?
At the moment we are organizing a CSR conference. Now we thought (or at least I did, as well as some externals) that we need to have a "black sheep" in the penal discussion. This is why I thought to invite a tobacco company. Ok, I know, AIESEC is not dealing with them, but if they just come without sponsoring us, this should be fine. Now, I went on their website and can you believe it, the whole site (of PM and BAT) are full of CSR topics, but nothing about their brands. PM writes that they refuse to put the name of their brands on their company website. Do you still think all they do is fake? Maybe I am very naive, but I really believe that it is in their interest to be active in CR and do something, especially because everyone doesn't like them. This is why I even sometimes think that they probably are way more active than other companies.
People might say "so if they are that socially responsible, why don't they just stop selling cigarettes?". Good question. But, I know that for example PM wants to get out of the tobacco business within the next 20 years or so. Why so slowly? Just think about how many people would loose their income. These farmers haven't planted anything else for the last 100 years probably more. So what the company does is, that they show these farmers how to change to the production of another good, and they also guarantee to buy these. I guess this is quite thought through.
But my question remains. Am I just being way too naive to believe this or do we react too critical towards those companies? Please let me know about your thoughts, because I really do not have the answer.
Now, I know this is true (and I also confirm this as a smoker) BUT, don't we react a bit too impulsive, don't we have too many prejudices?
At the moment we are organizing a CSR conference. Now we thought (or at least I did, as well as some externals) that we need to have a "black sheep" in the penal discussion. This is why I thought to invite a tobacco company. Ok, I know, AIESEC is not dealing with them, but if they just come without sponsoring us, this should be fine. Now, I went on their website and can you believe it, the whole site (of PM and BAT) are full of CSR topics, but nothing about their brands. PM writes that they refuse to put the name of their brands on their company website. Do you still think all they do is fake? Maybe I am very naive, but I really believe that it is in their interest to be active in CR and do something, especially because everyone doesn't like them. This is why I even sometimes think that they probably are way more active than other companies.
People might say "so if they are that socially responsible, why don't they just stop selling cigarettes?". Good question. But, I know that for example PM wants to get out of the tobacco business within the next 20 years or so. Why so slowly? Just think about how many people would loose their income. These farmers haven't planted anything else for the last 100 years probably more. So what the company does is, that they show these farmers how to change to the production of another good, and they also guarantee to buy these. I guess this is quite thought through.
But my question remains. Am I just being way too naive to believe this or do we react too critical towards those companies? Please let me know about your thoughts, because I really do not have the answer.
posted by regula at
6:04 PM
9 Comments:
Regi, I was thinking about something similar yesterday after a meeting with Exxon Mobile.
What I find strange personally, is when CSR activities are disconnected with the original activity of the company. For example, here in Colombia Exxon Mobile is polluting strips of land, beaches, and water with pipelines and activities related to the transport of oil, but invest mostly in the education of adolescent monthers, health issues such as HIV/AIDS, and finally in water protection initiatives. Besides those initiatives in water protection, I do not see what their CSR activity has to do with their business. This is for me the biggest criticism: on the one hand they destroy something because of their operations, and then try and "make up for it" somewhere with some activity that is so much easier. For me true CSR would be to ensure that the production, transport and refinery of oil is safe, and does not create desasters like the one in NYC.
In that sense I believe that the CSR activities of BAT are aligned with their business: Environmental management in cultivation of tobacco, globalisation and human rights (they are a global company), tackling underage smoking, and eliminating child labour in tobacco growing. And so I believe that BAT really should be at Connect!!!! Demonising and excluding organisations does not help anyone really.
And for that AIESEC policy... well, I have my issues with it, because it is in my opinion not consistent with having a company such as Inbev as a global partner. Again in my debatable opinion, alcohol destroys at least as many families and prohibits development as tobacco...
Good luck with everything, wish I could be at the event!!!
Hugs
Bee
xx
Hi Regi
This is Maja from LCBE. While bloghopping I came accross your really interesting discussion.
I totally agree with Bee on everything she wrote. I just want to outline two things:
1) Personally I'd love to have BAT as speakers for Connect07. They seem to be really interesting. As long as they don't become Sponsors it should be ok. We are still in AIESEC to expand our horizons and not to black mark anything or anyone.
2) Regarding InBev and global policies:
While working for IC, I also got to know the InBev representants in person and it really made me think why actually do we have them as global partner. And roughly speaking: getting free beer for international conferences is nice, but not really a satisfying answer for me. It doesn't really seem consistent to me at all... And with all those Arabic countries joining the AIESEC network, it even kind of worries me a bit (but that's a bit off-topic now).
Bottom line is: AiS once agreed to follow the global tobacco policy, yet I think inviting BAT as speaker wouldn't do any harm at all and might not even fall under the policy in fact. But that's up to you as Connect OC and maybe the MC and LCPs.
Looking forward to a great Connect!
Hi,
read the discussion cause Bee put a link on her blog. I wrote a post on my blog on PR a while ago that reflects a popular view on CSR (http://prstudentsandstarters.blogspot.com/2006/12/sustainability-reporting-is-pr-bullshit.html).
I actually had classes on CSR at my university and ALL my teachers are very sceptical. Bottom line is that CSR has become a communication tool useful for PR purposes. Main discussion thus stays: is doing good for the wrong reasons still good?
My personal opinion on this is that sustainable enterpreneurship should become the main overall strategy for all companies. Beer companies can increase their porfits but by stimulating alcoholism, oil companies can use natural resources but not at the cost of pollution, tobacco companies can sell cigarettes buit have to work on finding a way to transform them to more healthier methods.
If you always apply triple-bottom line thinking,CSR will not exist anymore, it will simply be the way businesses participate in the business environment.
Hi Regula!
Long time no see..., heard..., talk...
Anyways, my opinion is get BAT in the Conference and let the people ask them their concerns :)
Good luck with everything :)
Bee said it.. when a company doesn't make socially responsible activities fit into its business processes, it's merely doing PR.
I sat with a senior executive of BAT on the flight from Moscow to Delhi. He was almost apologetic about what he does for a living.. although he did say he only works there to earn a living. If PM actually are getting out of the tobacco business in 20 years, I think that would be great news for long-suffering second hand smokers all over. (wink, wink :))
enough said - i totally agree with the thoughts mentioned. you should watch the movie thank you for smoking as an inspiration. it's fantastic, very witty, sarcastic and thought provoking!
thank you for all your replies. i totally agree with your thoughts and ideas. especially concerning inbev (and also cadbury schweppes - they make ppl fat)
@ bee: i also remember our discussion concerning this "making ppl fat" topic at IC 2005
@ cileia: yes I've seen this movie in china (fake copy, actually another very interesting topic =) ) and i thought that it was just great. i especially like the part where he discusses with his son whether vanilla or chocolate ice-cream is better.
@ pierre: yes, got your hint... but actually its not as bad as it was in china.
@ maja: i hope to see you latest at connect 2007 =)
@ juanito: hola chico :)
hi all. interesting discussion.
I agree that the whole essence of sustainability (I prefer this term) is to minimise/eradicate the negative impacts of a businesses activities. Unrelated philanthropy may be a kind gesture, but it wont solve any of the problems that businesses cause.
I have a few thoughts that Id love to hear your reactions to :
Nicotine is the product of tobacco companies, and they will sell it in whatever form is socially accepted (cigarettes are less and less accepted, so notice that they are launching new smokeless, "less harmful" products, but which contain equal amounts of nicotine). The business objective: get people addicted to the drug.
Nobody has mentionned the scandal about the companies hiding documents that proved the adictiveness of nicotine. The companies continue to sponsor scientific research, which further twists the information available to the public.
However, absolutely invite them to a conference. Hear them out!
... AIESEC was dealing with them in 1981. The same year Karin went from Amsterdam to Switzerland. More information? Next door on your left ...
Post a Comment
<< Home