Tobacco multinationals exposed for greenwashing

Greenwashing and corporate social responsibility activities are being singled out by a joint report by STOP and the World Health Organization (WHO) as mere PR stunts designed to mask the tobacco industry's profound environmental impact. Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) are being targeted primarily for these types of practices, which also affect their competitors.

Environmental protection is one of the major arguments in the communication of tobacco multinationals, which they strongly promote through corporate social responsibility (CSR). A report[1] issued jointly by the World Health Organization and the STOP organization takes stock of these practices, presented as a global greenwashing operation (greenwashing, in English[2]).

Evasive evaluation criteria

The Waterfall project on water supply in West Africa by PMI, support for the preservation of forests on the southern coast of Brazil by BAT, funding of environmental education and sanitation programs in India by Imperial Brands… The list of these social and environmental projects financially supported by tobacco manufacturers is very long. So many operations that manufacturers use to communicate their responsible commitment to the planet and its inhabitants, and which have allowed PMI and BAT to be rewarded as exemplary companies for twenty years now by the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI).

This index is based on an ESG – environment, society and governance – notification, which is however poorly defined: no single protocol is set to establish it and there are more than 600 distinct ESG assessment methods. Since no requirements are set, tobacco manufacturers can thus provide the information they wish to reveal and hide that which they do not wish to reveal. They can thus establish their own sustainability objectives, without the harmful or polluting nature of a product being taken into account. The authors of the STOP/WHO report believe here that the sustainability argument, often taken up by all tobacco multinationals, most often consists of considering the sustainability of their economic model and their own company. The CSR actions deployed by manufacturers then serve as illustrations of their environmental and social commitment, but also to mask the considerable consequences of the cultivation, marketing and consumption of tobacco on the environment. These CSR actions are mainly, although not exclusively, aimed at low- and middle-income countries, which are more sensitive to the industry's societal arguments and whose anti-smoking regulations are less demanding.

The exorbitant environmental cost of tobacco

The figures are nevertheless eloquent: 6,000 billion cigarettes are produced per year, of which 4,500 billion cigarette butts are thrown on the ground and constitute the most widespread waste on the planet. Producing them requires the use of 22 billion cubic meters of water each year and has led, since the 1970s, to the sacrifice of 1.5 billion hectares of forests, particularly tropical ones, thus contributing to global deforestation. Each cigarette itself emits 14 grams of CO2 equivalent during its life cycle, or a total of approximately 80 million tons of CO2 for all cigarettes consumed. Despite these data, the real and complete environmental cost of tobacco remains unknown, due to the lack of exhaustive reference studies; it is nevertheless estimated that deforestation caused by tobacco alone contributes each year to an increase of 20% greenhouse gases[3].

The new tobacco and nicotine products promoted by the industry are particularly harmful to the environment: the batteries and accumulators of electronic devices use rare metals that are obtained through mining that is very harmful to the environment, while the plastics and metals of these devices require extremely polluting production processes. The waste, electronic or otherwise, from these products is therefore very persistent and weighs even more heavily on the environmental bill than conventional cigarettes.[4]. The chemical emissions from these devices are not only harmful to their users, but also to the environment. The use of electronic devices also involves lithium batteries or electricity to recharge the batteries. Finally, e-cigarette users seem to suffer from a lack of information on the treatment of waste from these devices, which should normally be provided and indicated by the manufacturer.[5].

A necessary seal with regard to public policies

Addressing and raising awareness of the environmental cost of the tobacco industry will be the theme of World No Tobacco Day on 31 May. This will provide an opportunity to recall that, in order to comply with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), governments and civil society organisations should not, under any circumstances, associate themselves with communication actions funded by the tobacco industry, and that it is essential to keep these companies out of all public policies.

Keywords: environment, CSR, ESG, DJSIFor more information on the environmental impacts of the tobacco industry, see our decryption.©Tobacco Free Generation

M.F.

---

[1] Behind the Scenes of Greenwashing: The Tobacco Industry and Environmental Protection, STOP/WHO, May 2022.[2] The term "greenwashing" has been listed by the Oxford English Dictionary since 2002 with this definition: "Misinformation disseminated by an organization that seeks to project a responsible image regarding the environment."[3] Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview, WHO, published May 30, 2017, accessed May 16, 2022.[4] Hendlin YH, Alert: Public Health Implications of Electronic Cigarette Waste, Am J Public Health. 2018 November; 108(11): 1489–1490.[5] A toxic, plastic problem: E-cigarette waste and the environment. Truth Initiative, February 2021.National Committee Against Smoking |