|
Beware of BAT "stakeholder
dialogue"
September 5, 2001 A number of tobacco control advocates around the world have been contacted by British American Tobacco recently re: establishing a "dialogue" on its corporate responsibilities. Below please find some examples of the methods BAT has taken in various countries, how tobacco control groups have resisted, as well as reasons why you should NOT participate, if contacted. For further details, as well as advice on how to respond to such industry requests, contact Essential Action. Related, GPTC participant Philip Karugaba (TEAN) recently got ahold of
a BAT stakeholders interview that a consulting firm is conducting in Uganda.
You can read it at: If you or your partner have been contacted by BAT (or any other tobacco company) to participate in a similar "dialogue," please let Essential Action know. Essential
Action AUSTRALIA A few of us in Australia are being contacted by an agency contracted by BAT to establish a "dialogue" on its corporate responsibilities commencing with a meeting. All the major groups in Australia are boycotting this on the strength of BAT's global record in cynically manipulating words like "responsibility" and "ethics" etc through exercises like the establishment of Nottingham Centre, and its refusal to countenance any real change in areas like victims compensation, handing back (retrospectively) all its earnings from under age smoking for the past 20 years, allowing meaningful product regulation and supporting legislation banning smoking indoors in public areas etc etc etc. In Australia, we are concerned that they will round up naive individuals and agencies and pass off their meetings with them as evidence of constructive dialogue with health groups. They are refering to this as part of a global exercise. Have others experience with this? How have you spread the word to keep the naive away? Simon Chapman
We have had this in the UK - they have engaged the former Bishop of Durham to make the link to health organisations!! I strongly advise anyone approached to refuse to participate. Though this might sound obvious, there can be a pressure to be involved - 'what harm can talking do?', 'they'll get a better idea of where you are coming from', 'this is a direct route to changing their ways'. ...all wrong. There are many justifications for not speaking: offering BAT a trophy, repugnance at the nature of their business, the practical matter of no identifiable common ground. My own is to say that I am not prepared to discuss anything with an organisation that is lying, bullying, and cheating its way round the health issue and mounting aggressive and deceptive PR and legal campaigns to undermine health policy. They simply do not show the good faith necessary to justify any prospect of dialogue. Clive Bates In South Africa, Moldova and a couple of other places, BAT is doing the same thing. In SA it's not as obvious, but they looked for opportunities to engage the health-orientated stakeholders, the local WHO, the Dept of Health, the Cancer Association and similar. When the local WHO office asked for a copy of the most recent BAT corporate responsibility leaflet, the head of BAT's communications personally delivered it. The WHO person remained absolutely non-engaged - in case BAT later claimed it had met and had discussions with WHO (which they are capable of doing). They invited some of these organisations to co-participate in a survey on smoking in restaurants (a hotly contested issue in SA since it was banned on 1/1/01) and we all agreed such offers should be turned down. Maria Bacic
Brown & Williamson, a U.S. subsidiary of British American Tobacco, convened a forum "Tobacco Science and Health Policy" October 2-3, 2001 in St. Louis, Missouri, in an effort to initiate "dialogue" re: the use of tobacco industry funds for research. To view a letter signed by ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, and CTFK calling for a boycott of the conference see:http://tobaccofreekids.org/conference/letter.pdf |