Tobacco Research

The latest updates from the University of Bath's Tobacco Control Research Group

Tagged: British American Tobacco

Supporting snus as a harm reduction tool: the need for caution

  , , , , , ,

📥  Harm reduction, Industry tactics, Public policy

There has been a long, polarising debate among public health experts in Europe about the potential benefits of tobacco harm reduction, and whether the wider availability of smokeless tobacco (particularly snus, a Swedish smokeless tobacco) and e-cigarette will lead to population level benefits or harms.  While no public health professionals would dispute that, for an individual smoker, a complete and permanent switch from cigarettes to snus or e-cigarettes will lead to health benefits, some have concerns that the wider availability of snus and e-cigarettes be detrimental to public health. Harm could occur if, for example, their use encouraged continued smoking rather than cessation, or snus and e-cigarette use acted as a gateway to smoking. While there is little evidence of the latter in Europe, some are specifically concerned that transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) (which make the vast majority of their current profits from cigarettes) will promote snus or e-cigarette use in a way that sustains and promotes, rather than reduces, smoking. Findings of our study, published today in PLOS Medicine and freely available here show that these concerns are not unfounded.

What we did

Our research centred on TTCs’ smokeless tobacco interest and investment in Europe, with a focus on British American Tobacco, and to a lesser degree Philip Morris. We qualitatively analysed a combination of historic internal tobacco industry documents dating from 1971 to 2009, available through the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/), and more contemporary materials including tobacco company investor presentations dating from 2008 to 2012.

What we found

TTCs started investing in the snus from 2002, leaving an insignificant number of snus manufacturers fully independent of cigarettes interests. However BAT has been scoping other SLT opportunities as early as the 1970s, driven by the threat of increased regulation (e.g. smoke-free policies) and growing health concerns about smoking, both likely to result in less cigarette sales.  BAT considered SLT an opportunity to create a new form of tobacco use among a) smokers who were considering quitting, b) a new generation of ‘better educated’ consumers no longer interested  in taking up smoking,  and c) smokers in smokefree places. Young people were a key target.

When TTCs actually entered the Scandinavian snus market in 2002 (the only snus market in Europe), three issues converged: cigarette volumes started declining in Western Europe, discussions started at EU level about smokefree legislation, and crucially, unlike the 1970s, the public health community showed significant support for tobacco harm reduction. 

Despite these investments, we found little evidence in TTC’s corporate reporting that snus is or was a core part of their business strategy and recent snus test markets have failed. Since 2009, the focus of TTC’s investment in less harmful products has shifted to pure nicotine, and moved to e-cigarettes in 2012.

Why does it matter?

Although it is still early days to understand the TTCs motives behind their move away from tobacco into nicotine, a recent BAT investor presentation suggested that non-smokers rather than smokers could be the target of BAT’s reduced harm products. Our research on TTCs’ interest in SLT, shows that TTCs’ rhetoric about snus and harm reduction is inconsistent with historical and recent TTC documents and action, both of which suggest that TTCs may have little intention of promoting SLT use in a way envisioned by public health, as this would eat into their existing cigarette profits. TTCs’ snus investments have been defensive instead, turning snus from a threat (a product that may have competed with cigarettes) into a major opportunity (one that enables the TTCs to claim a joint agenda with public health and to rehabilitate their image via claims of wishing to reduce harm). By investing in snus, and perhaps more recently nicotine, cigarette companies are slowly eliminating competition between cigarettes and snus, thus helping maintain the current market balance in favour of highly profitable cigarettes while ensuring TTCs' long-term future should cigarette sales decline further and profit margins be eroded.

Importantly, what are the policy implications?

Currently snus sales are prohibited in all EU countries (except in Sweden) under legislation that regulates all tobacco products in Europe (Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC). As the current legislation was adopted in 2001, the European Commission had proposed a revised text, which the European Parliament will vote on next month.  The proposal maintains the sales ban on snus. Similarly, our study suggest that legalising snus sales in Europe may have considerably less benefit than envisaged and could have a number of harmful consequences.

Perhaps more concerning are the recent TTC investments in pure nicotine. Should such investments continue, competition between cigarettes and clean nicotine products will be reduced, and with it the potential for harm reduction to benefit public health.  Also, it may enable TTCs to present themselves as purveyors of nicotine rather than tobacco products, and use this to undermine Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which aims to protect public health policy from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

For more detail, check out our paper Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials

 

Links between political influence and corporate social responsibility uncovered

  , ,

📥  Industry tactics

Until now, how corporate social responsibility (CSR) works to secure access to public and elected officials has remained a mystery. For the first time researchers at the University of Bath have been able to explore this question using internal British American Tobacco (BAT) documents to look at how the company used CSR to re-establish access with the UK Department of Health following its decision to restrict contact with major tobacco companies and then shape the agenda of subsequent meetings. In the event, Department of Health officials blocked BAT’s attempts to change the course of tobacco control policy.

The British government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal shows clearly the increasing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for large corporations wishing to securing political influence. It suggests that political CSR is being used effectively by companies in the food and alcohol sectors to provide an ostensibly robust case for voluntary regulation and free them of any concerns they may have about working in partnership with big corporations.

Our study found that CSR facilitates government access by focusing discussions on the importance of cooperation and consensus. Companies can convey the sense that they are offering support for government health policies by linking their political priorities to widely accepted social and political values. BAT linked its preferred policies to politically salient values such as harm reduction, child health, and the importance of cooperation between business and government. This enabled BAT employees to represent their dialogue as benign and unlikely to compromise government policy on tobacco control. Once the company had secured access to health officials, it then tried to use CSR to influence their priorities. It encouraged them to take notice of alternative modes of (voluntary) regulation, and revise their concerns about whether the industry could be trusted to work in partnership.

Gary Fooks, Research Fellow at the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“It’s becoming increasingly apparent that big corporations are using CSR to pre-empt legislation and generally influence public policy, but we don’t really know much about how CSR works to produce these effects. Our study provides grist to the idea that the constructive veneer that CSR gives to corporate lobbying – particularly its seductive appeal to values such as partnership and co-operation - makes proposals which are not in the public interest appear less threatening, good for everyone and, therefore, easier to swallow for policymakers. Whilst this isn’t such a problem where officials have a strong sense of the public interest and are knowledgeable and sceptical of the intentions of corporate lobbyists, it’s likely to be a big problem where they don’t adequately consider the differences between corporate interests and those of the broader electorate.”

Anna Gilmore, Director of the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“Our study underlines corporations’ increasing use of CSR for political ends. One of the brilliant things about research based on previous confidential industry documents is that we get quite a frank portrait of what companies are doing and why. The problem with contemporary government CSR-based initiatives, such as the Public Health Responsibility Deal, is that what’s going on is quite opaque to public scrutiny. This needs to be corrected. There’s some interesting work being done by NGOs but it’s just not enough. Governments across Europe need to be a lot more transparent in their dealings with multinational companies which look set to have an increasing impact on global health.”

“The international presence of BAT and its promotion of CSR across its subsidiaries suggest that the problems we’ve identified are likely to be widespread. What’s particularly worrying is that government departments across the world are opening themselves up to corporate social responsibility, expanding the number of access points and providing a very porous policy environment for these sorts of political strategies.”

The Story in Brief

Historically, BAT had enjoyed privileged access to policymakers and was regularly consulted on plans for new government policy. However, during the 1990s, its relationship with the British Government steadily deteriorated. By the end of the decade senior BAT managers were expressing increasing concerns about the company’s declining political influence which culminated in the Department of Health’s refusal to meet with members of the company. Martin Broughton (BAT’s chair between 1998 and 2004) described the relationship as a “Mexican stand-off” which had potentially serious ramifications for its ability to manage the impact of EU enlargement on its business in Eastern Europe.

BAT concluded that its ability to project itself as a good corporate citizen was key to its ability to normalise relations with the Department. Its platform for engagement was its Partnership for Change Programme (see below) – the blueprint for its current CSR programme. After trying unsuccessfully to persuade Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health, to work in partnership, Broughton went over Milburn’s head and lobbied Tony Blair to use his influence to encourage a more conciliatory approach from the Department of Health. Whilst rejecting BAT’s arguments on a number of other issues, Blair gave Broughton the green light to talk to Department of Health officials about Partnership for Change.

Having been granted access, BAT employees used CSR initiatives and themes to set the agenda of discussions with health officials and encourage a continuing dialogue. According to BAT documents the content of meetings that subsequently took place closely mapped the themes BAT officials wanted discussed. BAT documents from the time are consistent with BAT using CSR initiatives strategically to influence the policy alternatives under discussion within the Department of Health. More recent evidence in the public domain suggests that BAT’s use of CSR as an agenda setting tool is ongoing.

Notes

British American Tobacco: British American Tobacco is the second largest tobacco company (by profitability) after Philip Morris International. Its CSR programme has been steadily accepted and approved by large parts of the investment and CSR communities. Senior employees are now frequently invited to speak at public engagements on CSR and business ethics and the company has won numerous awards for its CSRP.

British American Tobacco’s Partnership for Change Programme: BAT’s Partnership for Change programme covered a number of key areas such as voluntary marketing codes, youth smoking initiatives, accommodation of smokers and non-smokers, and reduced risk cigarettes. BAT also used the programme as an organising platform to frame its CSR initiatives in the early 2000s. By emphasising the value to public health of meetings between tobacco companies, government officials, and public health groups in the form of summits and forums the initiative was well designed to generate dialogue with the Department of Health.

Public Health Responsibility Deal: Companies from the food and alcohol sectors are currently enjoying greater success in influencing public health policy in the UK through the government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal. The Deal encompasses five cross-sectoral networks established to drive forward improvements in public health. At the time of writing, corporations and business organisations outnumbered non-business organisations and individuals (academics, nongovernmental organisations, representatives of public institutions) two to one in the food and alcohol networks that are responsible for setting immediate public health objectives in these areas. By devolving policy formation and delivery to companies whose products and marketing practices constitute the key proximate drivers of alcohol- and diet-related ill health and mortality this marks a potentially important shift in public health policy towards coregulation. The organising principles of the Deal draw heavily on the idea that CSR can be exploited to promote public health. Further, devised when the Conservative Party were in opposition, the existence of the Deal owes much to the success that large food and drink companies had in using CSR as a means of both gaining access to senior Conservative Party members and developing an alternative agenda for public health policy, which attempts to reconcile public health with business competitiveness. Our findings—and the absence of strong evidence suggesting that co regulation is capable of aligning the business models of big food and drinks companies with the demands of public health —suggest that the role of CSR in the Deal needs to be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Read the press release: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-08/plos-tcu081911.php

Read the paper: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001076

<!--[if !mso]> <! st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } -->Link:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001076

Gary J. Fooks Anna B.Gilmore1 , Katherine E.Smith , Jeff Collin3, Chris Holden , Kelley Lee2

(2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Policy Élites: an Analysis of Tobacco Industry Documents PLoS Med 8(8): e1001076. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001076

Links between political influence and corporate social responsibility and are uncovered

Until now, how corporate social responsibility (CSR) works to secure access to public and elected officials has remained a mystery. For the first time researchers at the University of Bath have been able to explore this question using internal British American Tobacco (BAT) documents to look at how the company used CSR to re-establish access with the UK Department of Health following its decision to restrict contact with major tobacco companies and then shape the agenda of subsequent meetings. In the event, Department of Health officials blocked BAT’s attempts to change the course of tobacco control policy.

The British government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal shows clearly the increasing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for large corporations wishing to securing political influence. It suggests that political CSR is being used effectively by companies in the food and alcohol sectors to provide an ostensibly robust case for voluntary regulation and free them of any concerns they may have about working in partnership with big corporations.

Our study found that CSR facilitates government access by focusing discussions on the importance of cooperation and consensus. Companies can convey the sense that they are offering support for government health policies by linking their political priorities to widely accepted social and political values. BAT linked its preferred policies to politically salient values such as harm reduction, child health, and the importance of cooperation between business and government. This enabled BAT employees to represent their dialogue as benign and unlikely to compromise government policy on tobacco control. Once the company had secured access to health officials, it then tried to use CSR to influence their priorities. It encouraged them to take notice of alternative modes of (voluntary) regulation, and revise their concerns about whether the industry could be trusted to work in partnership.

Gary Fooks, Research Fellow at the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“It’s becoming increasingly apparent that big corporations are using CSR to pre-empt legislation and generally influence public policy, but we don’t really know much about how CSR works to produce these effects. Our study provides grist to the idea that the constructive veneer that CSR gives to corporate lobbying – particularly its seductive appeal to values such as partnership and co-operation - makes proposals which are not in the public interest appear less threatening, good for everyone and, therefore, easier to swallow for policymakers. Whilst this isn’t such a problem where officials have a strong sense of the public interest and are knowledgeable and sceptical of the intentions of corporate lobbyists, it’s likely to be a big problem where they don’t adequately consider the differences between corporate interests and those of the broader electorate.”

Anna Gilmore, Director of the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“Our study underlines corporations’ increasing use of CSR for political ends. One of the brilliant things about research based on previous confidential industry documents is that we get quite a frank portrait of what companies are doing and why. The problem with contemporary government CSR-based initiatives, such as the Public Health Responsibility Deal, is that what’s going on is quite opaque to public scrutiny. This needs to be corrected. There’s some interesting work being done by NGOs but it’s just not enough. Governments across Europe need to be a lot more transparent in their dealings with multinational companies which look set to have an increasing impact on global health.”

“The international presence of BAT and its promotion of CSR across its subsidiaries suggest that the problems we’ve identified are likely to be widespread. What’s particularly worrying is that government departments across the world are opening themselves up to corporate social responsibility, expanding the number of access points and providing a very porous policy environment for these sorts of political strategies.”

The Story in Brief

Historically, BAT had enjoyed privileged access to policymakers and was regularly consulted on plans for new government policy. However, during the 1990s, its relationship with the British Government steadily deteriorated. By the end of the decade senior BAT managers were expressing increasing concerns about the company’s declining political influence which culminated in the Department of Health’s refusal to meet with members of the company. Martin Broughton (BAT’s chair between 1998 and 2004) described the relationship as a “Mexican stand-off” which had potentially serious ramifications for its ability to manage the impact of EU enlargement on its business in Eastern Europe.

BAT concluded that its ability to project itself as a good corporate citizen was key to its ability to normalise relations with the Department. Its platform for engagement was its Partnership for Change Programme (see below) – the blueprint for its current CSR programme. After trying unsuccessfully to persuade Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health, to work in partnership, Broughton went over Milburn’s head and lobbied Tony Blair to use his influence to encourage a more conciliatory approach from the Department of Health. Whilst rejecting BAT’s arguments on a number of other issues, Blair gave Broughton the green light to talk to Department of Health officials about Partnership for Change.

Having been granted access, BAT employees used CSR initiatives and themes to set the agenda of discussions with health officials and encourage a continuing dialogue. According to BAT documents the content of meetings that subsequently took place closely mapped the themes BAT officials wanted discussed. BAT documents from the time are consistent with BAT using CSR initiatives strategically to influence the policy alternatives under discussion within the Department of Health. More recent evidence in the public domain suggests that BAT’s use of CSR as an agenda setting tool is ongoing.

Notes

British American Tobacco: British American Tobacco is the second largest tobacco company (by profitability) after Philip Morris International. Its CSR programme has been steadily accepted and approved by large parts of the investment and CSR communities. Senior employees are now frequently invited to speak at public engagements on CSR and business ethics and the company has won numerous awards for its CSRP.

British American Tobacco’s Partnership for Change Programme: BAT’s Partnership for Change programme covered a number of key areas such as voluntary marketing codes, youth smoking initiatives, accommodation of smokers and non-smokers, and reduced risk cigarettes. BAT also used the programme as an organising platform to frame its CSR initiatives in the early 2000s. By emphasising the value to public health of meetings between tobacco companies, government officials, and public health groups in the form of summits and forums the initiative was well designed to generate dialogue with the Department of Health.

Public Health Responsibility Deal: Companies from the food and alcohol sectors are currently enjoying greater success in influencing public health policy in the UK through the government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal. The Deal encompasses five cross-sectoral networks established to drive forward improvements in public health. At the time of writing, corporations and business organisations outnumbered non-business organisations and individuals (academics, nongovernmental organisations, representatives of public institutions) two to one in the food and alcohol networks that are responsible for setting immediate public health objectives in these areas. By devolving policy formation and delivery to companies whose products and marketing practices constitute the key proximate drivers of alcohol- and diet-related ill health and mortality this marks a potentially important shift in public health policy towards coregulation. The organising principles of the Deal draw heavily on the idea that CSR can be exploited to promote public health. Further, devised when the Conservative Party were in opposition, the existence of the Deal owes much to the success that large food and drink companies had in using CSR as a means of both gaining access to senior Conservative Party members and developing an alternative agenda for public health policy, which attempts to reconcile public health with business competitiveness. Our findingsand the absence of strong evidence suggesting that co regulation is capable of aligning the business models of big food and drinks companies with the demands of public health suggest that the role of CSR in the Deal needs to be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Link:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001076

Gary J. Fooks[1] Anna B.Gilmore1 [2] , Katherine E.Smith[3] , Jeff Collin3, Chris Holden[4], Kelley Lee2

(2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Policy Élites: an Analysis of Tobacco Industry Documents PLoS Med 8(8): e1001076.

Until now, how corporate social responsibility (CSR) works to secure access to public and elected officials has remained a mystery. For the first time researchers at the University of Bath have been able to explore this question using internal British American Tobacco (BAT) documents to look at how the company used CSR to re-establish access with the UK Department of Health following its decision to restrict contact with major tobacco companies and then shape the agenda of subsequent meetings. In the event, Department of Health officials blocked BAT’s attempts to change the course of tobacco control policy.

The British government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal shows clearly the increasing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for large corporations wishing to securing political influence. It suggests that political CSR is being used effectively by companies in the food and alcohol sectors to provide an ostensibly robust case for voluntary regulation and free them of any concerns they may have about working in partnership with big corporations.

Our study found that CSR facilitates government access by focusing discussions on the importance of cooperation and consensus. Companies can convey the sense that they are offering support for government health policies by linking their political priorities to widely accepted social and political values. BAT linked its preferred policies to politically salient values such as harm reduction, child health, and the importance of cooperation between business and government. This enabled BAT employees to represent their dialogue as benign and unlikely to compromise government policy on tobacco control. Once the company had secured access to health officials, it then tried to use CSR to influence their priorities. It encouraged them to take notice of alternative modes of (voluntary) regulation, and revise their concerns about whether the industry could be trusted to work in partnership.

Gary Fooks, Research Fellow at the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“It’s becoming increasingly apparent that big corporations are using CSR to pre-empt legislation and generally influence public policy, but we don’t really know much about how CSR works to produce these effects. Our study provides grist to the idea that the constructive veneer that CSR gives to corporate lobbying – particularly its seductive appeal to values such as partnership and co-operation - makes proposals which are not in the public interest appear less threatening, good for everyone and, therefore, easier to swallow for policymakers. Whilst this isn’t such a problem where officials have a strong sense of the public interest and are knowledgeable and sceptical of the intentions of corporate lobbyists, it’s likely to be a big problem where they don’t adequately consider the differences between corporate interests and those of the broader electorate.”

Anna Gilmore, Director of the Tobacco Control Research Group said,

“Our study underlines corporations’ increasing use of CSR for political ends. One of the brilliant things about research based on previous confidential industry documents is that we get quite a frank portrait of what companies are doing and why. The problem with contemporary government CSR-based initiatives, such as the Public Health Responsibility Deal, is that what’s going on is quite opaque to public scrutiny. This needs to be corrected. There’s some interesting work being done by NGOs but it’s just not enough. Governments across Europe need to be a lot more transparent in their dealings with multinational companies which look set to have an increasing impact on global health.”

“The international presence of BAT and its promotion of CSR across its subsidiaries suggest that the problems we’ve identified are likely to be widespread. What’s particularly worrying is that government departments across the world are opening themselves up to corporate social responsibility, expanding the number of access points and providing a very porous policy environment for these sorts of political strategies.”

The Story in Brief

Historically, BAT had enjoyed privileged access to policymakers and was regularly consulted on plans for new government policy. However, during the 1990s, its relationship with the British Government steadily deteriorated. By the end of the decade senior BAT managers were expressing increasing concerns about the company’s declining political influence which culminated in the Department of Health’s refusal to meet with members of the company. Martin Broughton (BAT’s chair between 1998 and 2004) described the relationship as a “Mexican stand-off” which had potentially serious ramifications for its ability to manage the impact of EU enlargement on its business in Eastern Europe.

BAT concluded that its ability to project itself as a good corporate citizen was key to its ability to normalise relations with the Department. Its platform for engagement was its Partnership for Change Programme (see below) – the blueprint for its current CSR programme. After trying unsuccessfully to persuade Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health, to work in partnership, Broughton went over Milburn’s head and lobbied Tony Blair to use his influence to encourage a more conciliatory approach from the Department of Health. Whilst rejecting BAT’s arguments on a number of other issues, Blair gave Broughton the green light to talk to Department of Health officials about Partnership for Change.

Having been granted access, BAT employees used CSR initiatives and themes to set the agenda of discussions with health officials and encourage a continuing dialogue. According to BAT documents the content of meetings that subsequently took place closely mapped the themes BAT officials wanted discussed. BAT documents from the time are consistent with BAT using CSR initiatives strategically to influence the policy alternatives under discussion within the Department of Health. More recent evidence in the public domain suggests that BAT’s use of CSR as an agenda setting tool is ongoing.

Notes

British American Tobacco: British American Tobacco is the second largest tobacco company (by profitability) after Philip Morris International. Its CSR programme has been steadily accepted and approved by large parts of the investment and CSR communities. Senior employees are now frequently invited to speak at public engagements on CSR and business ethics and the company has won numerous awards for its CSRP.

British American Tobacco’s Partnership for Change Programme: BAT’s Partnership for Change programme covered a number of key areas such as voluntary marketing codes, youth smoking initiatives, accommodation of smokers and non-smokers, and reduced risk cigarettes. BAT also used the programme as an organising platform to frame its CSR initiatives in the early 2000s. By emphasising the value to public health of meetings between tobacco companies, government officials, and public health groups in the form of summits and forums the initiative was well designed to generate dialogue with the Department of Health.

Public Health Responsibility Deal: Companies from the food and alcohol sectors are currently enjoying greater success in influencing public health policy in the UK through the government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal. The Deal encompasses five cross-sectoral networks established to drive forward improvements in public health. At the time of writing, corporations and business organisations outnumbered non-business organisations and individuals (academics, nongovernmental organisations, representatives of public institutions) two to one in the food and alcohol networks that are responsible for setting immediate public health objectives in these areas. By devolving policy formation and delivery to companies whose products and marketing practices constitute the key proximate drivers of alcohol- and diet-related ill health and mortality this marks a potentially important shift in public health policy towards coregulation. The organising principles of the Deal draw heavily on the idea that CSR can be exploited to promote public health. Further, devised when the Conservative Party were in opposition, the existence of the Deal owes much to the success that large food and drink companies had in using CSR as a means of both gaining access to senior Conservative Party members and developing an alternative agenda for public health policy, which attempts to reconcile public health with business competitiveness. Our findings—and the absence of strong evidence suggesting that co regulation is capable of aligning the business models of big food and drinks companies with the demands of public health —suggest that the role of CSR in the Deal needs to be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Link:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001076

Gary J. Fooks Anna B.Gilmore1 , Katherine E.Smith , Jeff Collin3, Chris Holden , Kelley Lee2

(2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Policy Élites: an Analysis of Tobacco Industry Documents PLoS Med 8(8): e1001076. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001076

Contact:

Dr Gary Fooks

Department for Health, University of Bath

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001076

Contact:

Dr Gary Fooks

Department for Health, University of Bath


[1] School for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.

[2] London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

[3] Centre for International Public Health Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

[4] Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, United Kingdom.