The tobacco industry's interference is intensifying worldwide

The Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2025[1], published by the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), The report paints a worrying picture: in nearly half of the 100 countries assessed, tobacco industry interference in public health policies has worsened. Despite the obligations enshrined in Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), many governments continue to yield to pressure from manufacturers, delaying or weakening public health measures. France, due to the massive interference of tobacconists in public policy, has fallen in the rankings but remains among the top performers. However, the global context is marked by significant setbacks, where corporate social responsibility (CSR) partnerships are compromising the protection of health policies.

The Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index is a biennial assessment conducted by civil society. The latest edition covered 100 countries, with the analysis spanning the period from April 2023 to March 2025. This index measures how well governments are implementing the guidelines of Article 5.3 of the UNFCCC (Uniform Convention on Tobacco Control), which establishes a general obligation for Parties to protect their public health policies from the commercial interests of the tobacco industry. The data is drawn from public sources and then verified and reviewed. A lower score indicates greater resistance to interference. The 2025 edition shows that 46 countries have seen their situation worsen, 34 have made progress, and only 18 have adopted new measures or strengthened the implementation of Article 5.3 across all their administrations. The National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT) conducted the study for France.

France ranks 13th out of the 100 countries assessed by the 2025 Tobacco Control Index, placing it among the nations most resistant to tobacco industry interference. At the top of the global ranking are countries such as Brunei Darussalam, Palau, Botswana, Finland, the Netherlands, and Ethiopia, which stand out for their strict application of the provisions associated with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Conversely, the countries most exposed to the industry's influence are the Dominican Republic, Switzerland, the United States, Georgia, and Japan, where tobacco companies still benefit from privileged access to policymakers and more permissive regulations.

Persistent interference in public decisions

The 2025 edition of Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index This shows that, in the majority of the countries assessed, tobacco manufacturers continue to actively interfere in the development and implementation of public health policies. By exploiting governance weaknesses, a lack of transparency, and insufficient inter-ministerial coordination, the industry still manages to influence key legislation, delay tax reforms, and weaken prevention measures.

In several countries, parliamentarians, ministers, and senior officials have openly supported industry interests. In Malaysia, Parliament passed a tobacco products law in 2023 without the initially planned "tobacco-free generation" clause, following intense lobbying by tobacco and vaping manufacturers. In Guatemala, representatives met with industry representatives to co-draft legislation limiting bans on the sale of nicotine products. In Slovenia, members of parliament copied arguments provided by tobacco lobbyists to justify postponing the implementation of plain packaging, while in Switzerland, several elected officials handed over their parliamentary badges to industry representatives, granting them direct access to restricted areas of the Federal Parliament.

Industry pressure has also led to delays or weakening of tobacco taxation. In Poland, the tax authorities implemented a "cooperation" program with companies, including tobacco manufacturers, resulting in more favorable conditions for the sector. In Georgia, Parliament reduced the tax on chewing tobacco, snus, and shisha tobacco by 50% under direct pressure from manufacturers. Conversely, some governments have resisted: Chile and Turkey raised tobacco taxes despite significant pressure and made taxation a central lever of their public health policy.

Interference also occurs through the courts. In Mexico and Panama, tobacco companies have taken legal action to try to overturn bans on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, illustrating the global "harm reduction" strategy used to delay regulations. In Belgium, manufacturers have filed numerous appeals against royal decrees banning flavorings or nicotine pouches.

Conversely, some states serve as examples of good governance. Brunei Darussalam, Finland, the Netherlands, and Botswana occupy the top spots in the rankings, thanks to their strict application of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Drugs and Crime. For example, these countries have made a particular commitment to limiting interactions strictly to what is essential (product and industry regulation) and, when they do occur, to being fully transparent, detailing the topics discussed, the circumstances of the meeting, and the participants; prohibiting donations, especially to public entities; and systematically refusing any collaboration with manufacturers. These countries demonstrate through the positive evolution of their public health policies that the effective implementation of this general obligation is crucial.

The contrasts between countries, however, illustrate a growing divide between those that resist and those that do not, given the pressure exerted by tobacco manufacturers and their allies. This index of tobacco industry interference also highlights that countries that may have made significant progress in protecting public policies from the tobacco lobby are not immune to major setbacks, as evidenced by the current situation in New Zealand.

CSR and greenwashing: major drivers of influence

Following on from the previous edition published in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2025 Index highlights a worrying trend: while national legislation is becoming more restrictive towards tobacco manufacturers, these companies are increasingly employing circumvention strategies under the guise of "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) or "environmental sustainability" initiatives. These initiatives, which should be prohibited under Article 13 and the implementing guidelines of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, are being used to restore the industry's image while maintaining its privileged access to public decision-makers.

Behind programs presented as ecological or philanthropic, tobacco companies seek to normalize their activities and legitimize their presence in the public sphere. Their actions focus on four main areas: public cigarette butt clean-up campaigns, forest reforestation programs, support for farmers, and donations to local communities. In all cases, these initiatives allow the industry to gain political visibility and even forge direct partnerships with public authorities.

In Europe, several examples illustrate the depth of this infiltration. In Belgium, despite the existence of an official system of financial contributions from producers for the cleanup of tobacco waste, the Flemish Waste Agency (OVAM) signed a parallel agreement with Philip Morris International and the Federation of Cigarette Manufacturers to co-organize an awareness campaign against waste. In Denmark, municipalities collaborated with manufacturers through the NGO Keep Denmark Clean to design public ashtrays, giving industry a role in the local management of the waste it generates itself. In Switzerland, the Federal Ministry of the Environment has been criticized for its regular participation in roundtables on cigarette butt pollution with the direct presence of industry representatives, calling into question the neutrality of the state.

In Latin America, "clean-up" and "reforestation" initiatives serve as showcases for companies accused of destructive practices. In the Philippines, the government accepted a donation of mobile laboratories from Philip Morris International as part of a natural disaster response program. A major public relations campaign was organized around this handover, attended by the First Lady and several ministers. In Mexico, Philip Morris sponsored the 2024 World Cleanup Day on the island of Isla Mujeres, an event supported by local authorities. In Nicaragua and Brazil, the Ministries of the Environment supported or co-financed reforestation programs organized by the local subsidiaries of Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, allowing these companies to position themselves as partners in national sustainable development policies, even as environmental NGOs pointed out the counterproductive effect of the manufacturers' initiatives.

On the African continent, similar examples show that CSR is becoming a privileged means of accessing governments. In Madagascar, the Ministry of the Environment collaborated with Imperial Brands on a forest restoration project, while in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, public administrations participated in reforestation programs funded by tobacco manufacturers. In Zambia, a member of parliament publicly supported a tree-planting program sponsored by Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which was rebranded as an «ecological» initiative.

These practices of greenwashing These programs aim to divert attention from the real environmental damage caused by tobacco: deforestation, the massive use of pesticides in tobacco cultivation, and pollution from filters, which alone account for approximately 4.5 trillion pieces of waste each year. As the report emphasizes, these programs do not reduce the environmental impact of tobacco; on the contrary, they seek to avoid structural measures such as banning filters or excluding manufacturers from extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes.

Some governments, however, have reacted to counter these strategies. In Ethiopia, regional authorities ordered the closure of a community center funded by Japan Tobacco International, citing national legislation that prohibits any charitable contributions from the industry. In Finland, civil society successfully lobbied for a revision of an initial proposal that entrusted the management of cigarette butt waste to the industry: Parliament ultimately limited its role to simply covering the costs, in accordance with the polluter-pays principle and the provisions of the UNFCCC treaty that include these environmental dimensions.

These examples confirm that CSR initiatives linked to the tobacco sector are not driven by a sense of responsibility, but rather constitute an influence strategy. By distorting the very notion of sustainability, the tobacco industry seeks to improve its image, delay environmental regulations, and insert itself into public policy under the guise of cooperation. Only the strict application of Article 5.3 and the systematic exclusion of tobacco companies from public partnerships can put an end to this form of institutional disinformation.

Focus on France: legislative progress, vigilance required

France ranks 13th out of the 100 countries assessed by the Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2025, However, its ranking has slightly declined compared to the previous edition, reflecting insufficient implementation of all the provisions of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). While it remains among the countries most resistant to interference from the tobacco industry in the strict sense, France is experiencing an erosion of its position, in a context where manufacturers are redoubling their efforts to interfere in public policies, particularly environmental ones, but also due to the lobbying efforts of tobacconists, who are used as third parties by manufacturers to defend their interests.

Nevertheless, France remains one of the few countries to completely prohibit donations, particularly to political parties, from the tobacco industry. This measure, enshrined in French law on transparency in public life, constitutes a significant safeguard against the financial influence of manufacturers on political decision-makers. Furthermore, the government has established precise rules governing interactions between state representatives and economic actors in the sector, limiting these interactions to what is strictly necessary for the implementation of regulations. Public officials are also made aware of the application of Article 5.3, which remains an exception within the European Union.

The report also commends the firm stance taken by French authorities in response to the communication and corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns conducted by tobacco companies. France has indeed banned the tobacco industry's participation in any sponsorship or public partnership activities, in accordance with international guidelines. The Professional Advertising Regulatory Authority (ARPP) and the Interministerial Mission for the Fight against Drugs and Addictive Behaviors (MILDECA) have strengthened their monitoring of advertising and promotional content related to tobacco and vaping products, including on social media.

While France has made significant progress in public health, the report highlights a growing vulnerability in the area of environmental policy. The tobacco industry is attempting to regain a foothold by presenting itself as a player in the "ecological transition," notably through the eco-organization Alcome, approved in 2021 for the management of cigarette butt waste under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.

This delegation of a public mission to an organization funded and run by tobacco manufacturers has been criticized by numerous public health organizations, including the CNCT, which see it as a form of greenwashing The links can be even closer with local public decision-makers with whom the eco-organization maintains close ties and associated funding. The GGTC report thus warns of the need for France to extend transparency and interference prevention requirements to all public policies, including those related to cigarette butt pollution and waste management.

The report also notes that France, while generally exemplary, must remain vigilant in the face of the rise of new nicotine products (oral pouches, heated products, single-use e-cigarettes), which the industry is trying to present as "reduced-risk" alternatives. Tobacco companies are seeking to influence the public debate on the regulation of these products, relying on pseudo-scientific arguments or communication campaigns designed to undermine prevention measures.

Vigilance on the part of public authorities and civil society health actors therefore remains essential to prevent these strategies from «"risk reduction"» do not serve as leverage of influence in political and media spheres.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE