The Tobacco Industry's Image Strategy for Sustainable Development

Times of crisis are conducive to increased communication from the tobacco industry, the COVID19 pandemic[1]-[2]-[3] was the perfect example recently. Positioning itself as a public health ally is not the only way for the industry to perfect its image. To build an eco-responsible image in terms of sustainable development and attract new conscientious consumers – or not lose any – the industry has clearly understood that it must embrace this marketing strategy. The greenwashing or greenwashing, is a tactic used by industries whose business practices are destructive to the environment. This tactic aims to present the products of these industries as "sustainable".

The tobacco industry’s operations, from cultivation to waste management, are particularly toxic to the environment. Deforestation, the heavy use of chemicals in tobacco farming, and the large amount of waste generated by packaging and cigarette butts are damaging the environment, which tobacco companies are trying to hide. Tobacco industry greenwashing took off in the early 2000s and is based on public concerns for sustainable development.

Tobacco companies communicate in particular through "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) and they use this lever in the absence of international environmental regulations to better assert their interests in many low- and middle-income countries.

Indeed, when developing economies cannot fully finance their own environmental protection policies, tobacco companies offer them funding. In exchange, the industry demands benefits and increases its leverage to oppose regulations that could reduce consumption of its products.

CSR activities indeed provide coveted access to governments. In Bangladesh, for example, British American Tobacco Bangladesh[4] used CSR projects in sustainable development to strengthen its weight in government decisions.

But when a country proposes environmental legislation, tobacco companies resist it and threaten to relocate their operations to another country with more lenient regulatory conditions. In 2013, following protests by residents near a BAT factory in Uganda over air pollution from the manufacturer, parliament proposed a law to more strictly regulate tobacco production and sales in the country. BAT then closed its Ugandan factory and moved its operations to Kenya.[5].

Tobacco companies seek to gain legitimacy by using ratings rankings set up by environmental protection organizations.

Each of the four major transnational tobacco companies (British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Brands) has thus highlighted its result established by the Carbon Disclosure Project.[6] (CDP). Yet when the same group revised this assessment, these same companies left the structure. Similarly, when BAT, JTI and Imperial all received poor scores for transparency and environmental impact in 2017, these three companies withdrew from CDP Forestry reporting.

Tobacco companies write their own rules and 'goals' [7].

Since external assessment does not lead to recognition of the practices of these companies, they have decided to set up a voluntary reporting system, emanating from their own initiative and based on standards that they decide for themselves. There is indeed no standardized format for the data that industries must follow. This makes it difficult for researchers and external assessors to track progress over time or make comparisons between companies.

Additionally, a lack of standards leads to the creation of new metrics that can obscure the true extent of environmental impact. In 2018, for example, tobacco companies reported environmental impact data in vague units called “intensity.” Finally, companies are free to set environmental targets and choose to disclose on topics that best portray their practices. In 2017, after BAT-owned leaf suppliers exceeded the global target of 1.5 kg of chemicals per hectare, BAT announced that it would “no longer have a global average target.”[8].

As a result, the publications made are unclear, frequently inconsistent, methodologically weak and meaningless in terms of results.

©Tobacco Free Generation