Tobacco Companies And Thier Ethics Essay Research — страница 2

  • Просмотров 178
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 18
    Кб

their job, and therefore, the desire for acceptance in the workplace encourages them to adopt corporate culture. Tobacco companies display a lack of ethical concern in producing, marketing, and selling tobacco products. The addictive and harmful effects of cigarettes were already well known by tobacco companies from the 1950?s (Stauber, 1). The need to keep a supply of consumers addicted to nicotine in order to profit led to the development of the public relations industry. Exposing the tobacco companies knowledge and business practices began with a paralegal named Merrell Williams, Jr. He sent copies of a major tobacco company?s internal communications from a law firm to Stan Glantz at the University of California at San Francisco who then published The Cigarette Papers. This

analysis of what the tobacco companies knew and how they concealed it from the public was also published in the July 1995 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (Gibbs, 2). This proved the tobacco companies lied about their findings. When possible harmful effects from smoking led to a decline in cigarette sales, tobacco companies hired legendary public relations figures John Hill, Ivy Lee, and Edward Bernays to restore the security of their product in the market. This psychological marketing was first used on women and the children and included third party advocacy, subliminal message reinforcement, junk science, advocacy advertising, phony front groups, and buying favorable advertising and news reports (Stauber, 2). Sales to women increased with the implied

message that ?cigarettes keep you slim? from Virginia Slims and slogans such as ?Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet?. To break the taboo that respectable women do not smoke, they produced advertising equating cigarettes with freedom as a symbol of women?s liberation. Deluging society with decades of advertising on TV, in magazines, movies, radio, and billboards identified cigarettes with sex, youth, freedom, and vitality. By opening new markets in foreign countries, the tobacco companies continued to profit despite the bad press. Well-paid, powerful lobbyists prevented attempts to impose serious regulation and taxation by the government. The front group, National Smokers Alliance, created by Burson-Marstellar Public Relations and Philip Morris, set out to organize tobacco

victims in order to protect tobacco profits. This ?state of the art? campaign ran full-page newspaper ads, engaged in direct telemarketing, paid canvassers, and set up a toll free number and newsletters to bring smokers into the group. Paid young activists visited bowling alleys and bars to sign up smokers and encourage them to stand up for smokers? rights. NSA members were encouraged to apply political pressure on politicians with regard to smoking in the workplace. Implying anti-smokers were anti-American pushed a discrimination against smokers? freedom and rights, and was effective in uniting the group. Another front group created by PR and Philip Morris in California, nearly succeeded in overturning many restrictions already on the law books. The Californians for Statewide

Smoking Restrictions implied they were for smoking restrictions, but actually favored smokers (Stauber, 3). Anti-smoking groups educated the public about the group?s funding source and the tobacco company?s smokescreen failed. Politically, tobacco companies wield immense influence through political contributions and well-connected lobbyists (Common Cause, 1). By delaying or blocking bills, the tobacco industry avoided control by the government for years. Politicians were rewarded financially by tobacco and stood to lose easy campaign money if they challenged tobacco. Tobacco companies also exerted influence against anti-tobacco politicians by contributing to their competitor?s campaigns. Generous awards, special interest money, and jobs after public service sweetened the deal and

bought silence and inactivity on legislative bills for many years. Now public awareness and the media make tobacco supporters less popular. Congress has a moral and public policy duty to prevent smoking in children (Common Cause, 1-2). The goal for tobacco companies is now to avoid losing legal and political battles. The battle to alter public opinion on smoking and health is already lost (Stauber, 3). Eventually ignoring ethics leads to more laws and regulations as society attempts to alter unethical business practice (Daft, 2). One ploy used by the tobacco companies to ease the minds of nervous consumers was the creation of the low tar cigarette. The actual tar exposure and the subsequent health risk are about the same as a conventional cigarette. and nicotine amounts listed on