» Articles » PMID: 19106419

The Role of Corporate Credibility in Legitimizing Disease Promotion

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2008 Dec 25
PMID 19106419
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: We explored what corporate "credibility" means to tobacco companies to determine why it matters to companies and what a lack of credibility means to them.

Methods: We collected documents from an online tobacco industry document archive and analyzed them with an interpretive approach.

Results: Tobacco companies conceptualized credibility not as being worthy of belief or confidence but as inspiring it. Thus, credibility was understood primarily as altering public perception of the industry. "Truth" was largely absent from tobacco industry conceptualizations of credibility, which were linked with "responsibility" and "reasonableness." However, industry research found that the public regarded credibility and responsibility differently, expecting these to entail truth telling, advertising reductions, less harmful products, apologies for deception, making amends, or exiting the tobacco business altogether. Overall, industry credibility-building projects failed repeatedly.

Conclusions: Public health discourse increasingly attends to the roles of corporations in promoting disease. Industries such as tobacco and alcohol have been identified as profiting from harmful products. Yet corporations' ability to continue business as usual requires sustaining an implicit societal assent to their activities that depends on corporate credibility. For public health to address corporate disease promotion effectively, undermining corporate credibility may be strategically important.

Citing Articles

Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis.

Legg T, Clift B, Gilmore A Tob Control. 2023; 33(4):525-534.

PMID: 37137700 PMC: 11228203. DOI: 10.1136/tc-2022-057667.


How commercial actors used different types of power to influence policy on restricting food marketing: a qualitative study with policy actors in Thailand.

Phulkerd S, Collin J, Ngqangashe Y, Thow A, Schram A, Huckel Schneider C BMJ Open. 2022; 12(10):e063539.

PMID: 36229148 PMC: 9562312. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063539.


Cigarette Packs With URLs Leading to Tobacco Company Websites: Content Analysis.

Weiger C, Smith K, Hong A, Cohen J J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(6):e15160.

PMID: 32459649 PMC: 7312247. DOI: 10.2196/15160.


The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting.

Hendlin Y, Bialous S Ambio. 2019; 49(1):17-34.

PMID: 30852780 PMC: 6889105. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3.


Revolution or redux? Assessing IQOS through a precursor product.

Elias J, Dutra L, St Helen G, Ling P Tob Control. 2018; 27(Suppl 1):s102-s110.

PMID: 30305324 PMC: 6238084. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054327.


References
1.
Yach D, Bettcher D . Globalisation of tobacco industry influence and new global responses. Tob Control. 2000; 9(2):206-16. PMC: 1748346. DOI: 10.1136/tc.9.2.206. View

2.
Wander N, Malone R . Making big tobacco give in: you lose, they win. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(11):2048-54. PMC: 1751801. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.075119. View

3.
Jahiel R, Babor T . Industrial epidemics, public health advocacy and the alcohol industry: lessons from other fields. Addiction. 2007; 102(9):1335-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01900.x. View

4.
Chapman S, Freeman B . Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry. Tob Control. 2008; 17(1):25-31. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2007.021386. View

5.
Hammond D, Fong G, Zanna M, Thrasher J, Borland R . Tobacco denormalization and industry beliefs among smokers from four countries. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31(3):225-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.004. View