Abstract
This 1977 "Report on Social Acceptability of Smoking" by ICOSI (the International Committee on Smoking Issues) outlines the global tobacco industry's need to implement "countermeasures" against public health tobacco control efforts worldwide. The document describes the remarkable public health progress authorities had made by then in educating the world's population about the dangers of tobacco use. Appendix A at back of the document lists these successes, country by country, and represents them as growing threats to the industry. Some examples:
"SWEDEN:
In the 13-year period, 1963 to 1976, the incidence of men smokers who account for the major part of cigarette consumption declined significantly...
UNITED KINGDOM:
In 1977, 86% of the population (84% of the smokers) consider smoking bad for their health -- up from 48% in 1961...Incidence of smoking has declined sharply among men --from 59% of 1961 to 47% in 1975...Percentage of ex-smokers among males and females has steadily increased during the same period. Per capita consumption [of cigarettes] decreased in 1975 and 1976...Volunteer "public service" and "health" organizations against smoking are varied, numerous, widespread and effective...
AUSTRALIA:
In 1977, 51% of the cigarette smokers feel that smoking is extremely harmful, up from 33% in 1968...Since 1971, the incidence of smoking has declined from 39% to 35% in Melbourne and Sydney...
IRELAND ...The declining incidence of smoking by males, particularly in the younger age groups and higher social classes, has accelerated. The incidence of quitters has also accelerated..."
The industry describes this stunning public health progress as "a gloomy picture," and concludes that the "industry needs stronger countermeasures" to combat this progress. The report concludes that the industry needs to target smokers, opinion leaders and the general public with its countermeasures, instead of confining these efforts to only government, as the industry had long been doing until that point. It concludes that "the industry should launch sustained, long-term countermeasure programs" to fight progress against smoking.
The paper gives hints about why preserving the social acceptability of smoking is so key to preserving the indusry's other defenses:
"Until society believes that smoking does not harm the health of nearby nonsmokers, the industry will continue to run grave risks of further reverses on social acceptability issues. For example, the industry's critical 'freedom of choice' position cannot be maintained if people believe they are harmed simply by being near a smoker."
The paper links the social acceptability issue back to the "primary health issue," and concludes that "The Basic Smoking and Health Issue (Smoking Affects Smokers) is a root cause of Social Acceptability issues...Clearly if real progress is made toward resolving questions concerning smoking and health, much of the pressure against smoking in a social sense will be eased." The paper also observes other threats to the industry, specifically that "smoking is becoming a downscale social activity...there are relatively fewer smokers among better-educated, higher income, trend-setting segments of the population than there are among the balance," and "large numbers of today's children and young teenagers appear to have increasingly negative attitudes about adult cigarette smoking...anti-smoking propaganda seems to be conditioning a new generation to have a bias against smoking as socially acceptable behavior."
This document shows how tobacco companies from several countries around the world came together to created and implement "countermeasures" aimed at reversing the progress that governments and health groups had made against tobacco worldwide by 1977.
Fields
- Quotes
[From Page 1000221526]:
SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the Working Party's Conclusions of highest priority...
1. The Basic Smoking and Health Issue (Smoking Affects Smokers) is a root cause of Social Acceptability issues (Smoking Affects Others in Society)...Clearly if real progress is made toward resolving questions concerning smoking and health, much of the pressure against smoking in a social sense will be eased...
2. Social accpetability Issues arise on three basic levels:
a. The passive smoker level - smoking is asserted to be socially unacceptable because it is allegedly damaging to the health of others who happen to be in the presence of smokers...Available research indicates that smoking does not harm the health of others who are nearby. This must be sustained and firmly established as a "fact" in all public discussion of the issue...Until society believes that smoking does not harm the health of nearby nonsmokers, the industry will continue to run grave risks of further reverses on social acceptability issues. For example, the industry's critical "freedom of choice" position cannot be maintained if people believe they are harmed simply by being near a smoker.
3. Social acceptability issues concern the smoker as well as the non-smoker. Opponents of smoking try to create an intimidating atmosphere which, if successful, can lead to smokers' feeling socially uncomfortable about their behavior, even among family and friends.
...5. Existing data is sufficient to indicate that smoking has been decreasing in overall social acceptability in the past decade. Furthermore, cigarette smoking is becoming a downscale social activity: that is to say, there are relatively fewer smokers among better-educated, higher income, trend-setting segments of the population than there are among the balance. Among people of higher social status, there seem to be pronounced trends toward smoking's becoming less socially acceptable. If this is sustained, it has serious long-term implications for the industry.
6. The Working Party found a distinct correlation between the extent of government actions against smoking and the intenstiy of elitist/consumerist/civic activist pressures to castigate smoking as socially unacceptable. Judicial decisions and bureaucratic rulings tend to further dramatize and dignify anti-smoking efforts in the eyes of the public.
7. Data on countermeasures indicates that only in a few countries has the cigarette industry commenced any organized and systematic efforts to improve the climate of social acceptability.
8. Anti-smoking efforts are internationalized, with common strategies and tactis implemented through worldwide networks of unified organizations (such as the World Health Organization, Cancer Societies, professional medical and health associations, and religious organizations). In the face of this, the industry's inability to organize a cohesive strategy limits the effectiveness of its countermeasures.
[From Page 10, Bates No. 1000221530]:
--Even where the social acceptability of smoking issue is highly developed (as in the U.S. and U-K), it is still secondary to the smoking and health issues.
[From 1000221532]:
1. Basic Health issues are main root. By far, the most important basic influence on social acceptability issues are related to the well-publicized alleged statistical association between smoking and alleged damage to the health of the smokers.
2. Social acceptability tied to basic health issues in public attitudes. Thus, the Working Party finds that basic smoking and health issues form the major cornerstone on which social acceptability issues are based. Were it not for basic smoking and health issues, the Working Party concludes that there would be no serious social acceptability issues. ..
10. Public beliefs about medical science as an influence. In some of the sample countries, negative influences are related to society's very high regard for medical science and research. Doctors and health scientists are in a position to give the impression that they're all-knowing and all-powerful when it comes to what's best for individuals. Large numbers of doctors and scientists are among the leaders in speaking out against the social acceptability of smoking with strong statements. Even though there is no sound research to back up these statements, the public tends to accept them because of high public regard for medicine and science.
12. The industry is a negative influence. The Working Party concludes that the cigarette industry is exerting a negative influence because of its inability to make forceful positive inputs into social acceptability controversies to date.
[From Page 16, Bates No. 1000221536]:
SECTION V
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON INDUSTRY COUNTERMEASURES
1. Industry needs stronger countermeasures. The Working Party finds that the cigarette business has faced social acceptability issues in the past. However, the Working Party concludes that today's stronger challenges will require stronger countermeasures....
2. Mainly directed at government. In dealing with current social acceptability issues, the industry has focused almost all its countermeasures on blocking, delaying or changing governmental actions and plans.
3. Few countermeasures directed at public opinion. The Working Party has found only a few campaigns that are systematically desinged to influence the general public, opinion leaders and senior bureaucrats who exert such great influence on contemporary social acceptability issues.
4. Few efforts aimed at smokers. Similarly, there are only a few industry efforts designed to specifically help smokers deal with the social acceptability issues and pressures.
5. More targets for countermeasures. From these findings, the Working Party concludes that the industry should broaden the scope of its efforts targeted toward the attitudes and opinions of key groups. The industry should have countermeasures that nip social acceptability issues in the bud before they mushroom into proposed laws and regulations.
6. Need to act, not just react. The Working Party finds that industry countermeasures are usually "reactions" to outside pressures for laws and regulations. We conclude that the industry should have a positive set action of programs designed to reach specific goals.
7. Need sustained programgs, not disjointed episodes. The Working Party finds that industry countermeasures are usually short-term efforts. We conclude that the industry should launch sustained, long-term countermeasure programs. Social acceptability issues have been developing for several years and quick turnarounds in social acceptability trends cannot be expected.
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF INDUSTRY COUNTERMEASURES
...1. Trade Associations and countermeasures. The Working Party finds that national trade associations (rather than individual companies) are key vehicles for launching countermeasures... Such association countermeasures become even more effective when they carry "third party" endorsements...
SECTION VI
OTHER OBSERVATIONS OF THE WORKING PARTY
1. Such evidence as the Working Party has points to a growing number of smokers who have some feelings of "social uneasiness" about smoking in the presence of others. That is to say, smokers may be losing their self-confidence about the social acceptability of their smoking. When confronted by anti-smokers, smokers appear to be relatively passive about their rights to smoke.
2. Although available data is sketchy, large numbers of tobday's children and young teenagers appear to have increasingly negative attitudes about adult cigarette smoking. That is to say, anti-smoking propaganda seems to be conditioning a new generation to have a bias against smoking as socially acceptable behavior.
3. The industry has done little to reinforce the positive aspects of smoking as relates to social acceptability...
4. Attacks on the industry are increasing in intensity and are becoming organized on an international basis. The situations in which the industry has freedom for launchiing countermeasures are becoming limited. Time is now running against the industry...
[From Page 1000221556]:
The [current] industry response to the social acceptability
"is not working." The U.S. population, smokers and nonsmokers alike, have stronger negative beliefs, attitudes and intentions about smoking and nonsmokers. The incidence of smokers in the population is declining. Anti-smoking groups are growing in number, size and effectiveness. Restrictive smoking laws and regulations appear with growing frequency, coverage and stringency.
A gloomy picture. Yes, but an understandable one because the U.S. industry has yet to really face the social acceptability issue head on...
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- SAWP- Social Acceptability Working Party of ICOSI, the International Committee on Smoking Issues (Dennis Durden, VP of RJR, Chairman)
- Recipient
- International Committee on Smoking Issues
RegionGlobal
Sweden
United Kingdom
Australia
Ireland
United States
Canada
Netherlands
West Germany
Belgium
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Switzerland
Venezuela
TypeREPT, OTHER REPORT
CHAR, CHART/GRAPH
LIST, LIST
LitigationStmn/Produced
Named PersonDurden, C. Dennis (VP of RJR Industries, 1984, TI Communications)Director of RJR Corporate Public Affairs, 1975, Dir. of Public Affairs Council, 1977, VP of R.J. Reynolds Industries, 1984. Served on the Communications Committee for the Tobacco Institute, 1977 (while an RJR employee).TI Communications
Haddon, Richard (BAT Public Relations Manager, Tobacco Division)London
Herter, Ulrich Georg Volker (BAT Tobacco Managing Director & Board of Directors Member)New Business Development
Hind, James F. (RJR Director 1979-80, VP of Planning, RJR c.1978)
Landry, John T. (VP of PM 1970-76. Sr. VP '77-83, Dir. of Marketing '84)Vice President for Philip Morris, Inc. from 1970-76. Became a Senior Vice President in 1977 and held that position until 1983. Was named Senior Vice President and Director of Marketing in 1984 and served on PM's Board of Directors from 1973-84. Served as memer of the Social Acceptability Working Party of ICOSI, c. 1978
Reid, Andrew (ITC Ass't Managing Director (late 1970s))Commercial Director, Imperial Tobacco, Bristol, England, c 1978
Rucker, Thomas J. (RJR General Counsel)
Stern, Dr. Edward (Gen. Mgr, R&D Resources, Gallaher c. 1978)General Manager, Research & Development Resources, Gallaher Tobacco, Ltd. 1978
Vogel, Christian (Director, Public Relations Div. Reentsma , c. 1986)West Germany
Witt, Samuel B., III (CTR and RJR Director & Gen. Counsel)Held various executive positions for RJR and Council for Tobacco Research
Operation/ProjectSocial AcceptabilityIndustry efforts to counteract the decline in social acceptability of smoking worldwide.
Social Costs/Social Values Project (Develop of argumentation against the social costs issue)
Countermeasures (Efforts by global tobacco indsutry to restore the social acc)Through ICOSI, the global tobacco companies worked in concert to undermine public health education about tobacco use, reverse the declining social acceptability of smoking, slow quit rates and preserve smoking as normal and accepted human behavior.
Named OrganizationAmerican Cancer Society
BAT, British American Tobacco
Bavarian Ministry of Social Affairs
Gallaher
HF & Ph F Reemtsma
Hong Kong Urban Council
International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI)Was formed to address and reverse the global decline in social acceptability of smoking occurring in the 1970s Consisted of the major tobacco manufacturers worldwide, was created to deal with the global decline in social acceptability of smoking. ICOSI was created
Imperial Tobacco
Irish Association of Nonsmokers
Malaysian Medical Association
Martin Brinkmann AG (in Germany)
Nonsmokers Rights Movement
RJR, R.J. Reynolds
Rothmanns
Seventh Day Adventists (religion that prohibits smoking. runs smoking cessation prog)
World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)International organization concered with public health worldwide
World Health Conference
SubjectCountermeasuresStrategies & tactics the industry used to counter public health efforts to control tobacco
Social
Social Acceptability (Social acceptability of smoking)The industry fought the decline in social acceptability of smoking through public relations campaigns, legislation, etc.
social behavior
social cost
social influence
Document Images
Page 1: sve84e00
f
MEMBERS OF WORKING PARTY ON
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY ISSUE
:
Page 3: sve84e00
7Members of Working Party
Letter of Transmittal
~ ti.~'.~;~sr 'a'-~,. .a~;. , -..r_.
T. '
: ,Tab1e of Contents
_Reader's Guide to This Repor
t., t
.SECTION I
Introduction to Country-by-Country Analyses
~'~'S..'$+
~ .~AR~. r r *.>_~ + 3fra9a~s..`t,.~. 'r}~' ~. . `.
SECTION III
31
~i~~-Y~~~..-t:«~~~~i.'i!-1L`
Sumnarv Findin4s'and Conclusions'on Current Levels, Country-by-Coun
C y~ 'S r . ~ F.r 7' `r ? .~' ,y-~ +-gy~ .y''~' ~ f~'S~, !" r ~.~~y"~; !t'.A,~~'e.~~}~}'"'~'~''"-
{ ~~ r }' ' .~ J.~+~r~' . . . T , ..'.X'h' 'YY-.+tiirt"'btrJ'h~Z~k~~ti.,.:~,~'C ' i - l~: ~~~~:".":
SECTION IV i
~ +r 3
~ ,r ~~r ~ ~'~ i -
tSummary. Findings and Conclusions on Influencing Factorsl;
. _.~ . ~,.
SECTION . V_-~:
Page 4: sve84e00
~~ `~- i"45 r w':~'~1 ' ?
5-
This ;reportcovers the first three of the "terms of
the Working Party in the ICOSI statement of June
iii~`S4* 9 # - a ", ..~.. r '. r a~ t i ~P . . F.(= , .
~
-
`
'
2) To identify the factors which have affected this.
3) To examine such countermeasures as have been used.
. ~ ~` : n . . . .
For theseI activities, the Working Party followedICOSI's suggestion and incorporated
"country-by country" anaiyses into their work and this report.
. .
.
,
:
~
~~ t,
~ r~~rr :
.:'2"~,u''f1rL"~'3
r.. 5`3..., k`..-Y ~ -"^~. 'r'4-f.[ r4t -~+~~ ;~ ~,`Li
.~ t
,, tt x _ .°fr}~~- ' ~ ~ .n. . . z -"wa".t;' _ , . _. ~~ ;: } 'f ~6°s ~
Additionally; this report includes the Working Party's proposals for carrying out
.the final two of IGUSi's five assi9nments::~~~
'° P,f~ .-r:~~j ~~y ~.;;~~'"~)'>F': . .`:'~fY ry ^: ~
"
To recommend the countermeas
"To recommend a mechanism for.monitoring and measur~ng future_changes;
~'~'x:'r.: ~. r, { 3 ! 'a .we^. i i `s' ti'1 + ~f k i'StL:`»6eG±~
~.s~!Fn.a;r°_:.w~...- i,ar......-.,ict:;{5t~~$" .si~T~TS?'t?~=.~,~r,5 ....:;..,,r.. ~. .>,n..N
.n~N.:.~-..+-Rir,r,,~a.t ...~. . ,...-.,r~, ~;:, :..,w....,, .,..... .. .., .- ..,,;..,.-.~~
.;,.-:a~,.._...:...+
The Working Party is prepared to start on its second{round of research and reporting,
d
i
w
ewe
.
has rev
ICOSI
ill get underway after
and cover these two additional tasksIt
~
`
this present report and has given their green llght to proceed.°`a
~~AQW
~..
?
fi
~'
Mp.i~~~r,i -~i..ro ~i:4'~~' ~'e~. r'vy .
~""r3
"
~
'
.
i
,~
~
,.
, . . - .,. . .
~
c
~
~~~3.f~-,J;
n compiling this first-report; the Working Party faced problems in compressing
large volumes of study data into a workable volume.' There were also needs to draw
general conclusions from many specifics.'. Our report format is designed to surmoun
"
"'
' k&.&*;,U-a tAulWs< :w~* '
f
~
'
d
h
orwar
way :,
t
the problems and meet the needs in a straig
.F;~~ nf all_~rn,t eur eiaht rt~st imaortant aeneral conclusions
sii Tt:Mx ,r~ . r.~ i~y - - . ~
~
immediately following this "Guide '
~;}(
id P t " - r 4~r
,~1 rM 4~ , ~~ ~~~~~~-/
ns
II
Additional conclusions about country-by country findings are found in Sectio
.IV; and Vs'~ These can be read independently, but they take on more meaning if they ;'~
~are_read in the light of the perspectives set forth in Section II.F.x;6ackup materials
from Working Party members are listed in Appendix A. A much larger collection of
.ti .-.
'`"'
*
materi al s produced by the Working Party has been suppl i ed to each member.
'
`
eitt.'~! ilul:q
2Yts
k+; .1 t ' ~'.~ sn ~~~i~
r
.f
x-°rt+. ......,..
InSection VI, wey set out "observations" of the Working Party on.issues of sociaT`
acceptability "-We believe these."observations" are both valid and valuable insights
nto the issue: `~ However, at this stage of the work, the Working Party could not .~
t
l
t
d
"
"
"
conc
usions
se
ou
findings an
as readily as the
support these'"observations
.~ ..
. . .
,
~~n earl ier sections."'.,
'~.'tiA.~`
~~~
'
"~t
~)2~
'
1
':
F`
~
~^~-.k'PN
'
`
~~.1
k
'
~
R
~/~
~{~~
~
~
s~
~
;
a
'.
{
,y
.}
. ~:
f
,..
Y
I
f
~
:
;
..
-
rS
.
.~
K
lt'~`
°.
~~~i~~'
AjS
~~
.: .*l'Y.?s~
~~:~'IYP'~~~~
:..,;Section VII °concludes the main body of~th3e*Vreport. It'sets forth the Working Party's
~-
~~proposal sfor _carryi ng out the final two items assigned to the group by :;
1) To assess the current level of the social acceptability.
7~'2
~~
'
~
~:~~a~a
Page 5: sve84e00
1v~' d
1 `~:.The8asic `Smokinand Health Issue
Smoking Affects Smokers) is a root-
.cause of Social Acceptability Issues
.,:
Smokin Affects Others in Society).
However, the two issues can and must
be divided for purposes of effective
industry response. Clearly, if realw
rogress is made toward resolving
f
questionsconcerning smoking and
health, much of.the pressure agains
smoki ng i n asoci social sense wi l l be -
~eased. ^~:The Working Party emphasizes therefpre;"that it,is essential to
spare no effort in continually pur='"
suing conclusive answers to smoking` ;
and health questions..'
,, 'S. .",C~
-._
However,:the Working Party's terms of
reference aresuch..that, having made g,'"
X
this point,''it concentrated its
efforts on tackling issues of..th
;..e ~
7~~.social acceptability of smoking. O~
~~'~ e~
ocial acceptabilityIssues arise on
SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
~ i k ~~~~'
. r~~s:~~.~.i w.~>.h.:... #a .. ..a_, ..,n. '~'~` .l '%d..ifCP.. '. ' '_ '.~!~ I ~
This section presents the ~Jorking(Party s\Sconclusions of highest priority Here
at the outset of the report they are highlighted and placed before ICOSI
. .. . a < 4e'N'^ ;;xvyl3 kf 3' {.l`... f ,~r P '},~ eSYn
~,~, ,: -{ . ';,..-
Until society believes that
smoking does not harm the health y
of nearby nonsmokers ;'`the i ndustry .~
`will continue to run grave ris ks~
"of further reverses'`on socialj ~~
acceptability issues For example;
rthe industry.'s critical "freedom
' of choi ce";, posi ti on cannot be
maintained if people`believe tfiey:
are harmed simply by being near.a:
Psmoker.
~Y e.! '1'-~-'~i S3 ° ' ~'
.The courtesy level--smoking
allege to be socially
unacceptable because it is
annoying to others who happen ._~
,,to be in the presence of smokers
;Approaches.to.the , courtesy F-
~ l evel can be compati bl e and V,
~parallel with those'addressing
~~'the passive smoker level.~
-Vol,
. The social cost level--smoking
is asserted to be socially
unacceptable because it allegedly
raises society's insurance and
; heal th care cost. " Smokers ~~
.,~~~
.. _.: are asserted to be sick more often,
require more medical treatment,''._
:and die earlier. '`:;They alle~edly_
.:require others in society to pay
'.higher taxes and insurance pre-~
,miums to "subsidize" the social
costs/expenses supposedly generated
by smokers.
`Social acceptability issues concern
the smoker as well as the non-smoker.'-
OFponents of smoking try to create an
intimidating atmosphere which, if
successful, can lead to smokers'
feeling socially uncomfortable about
their behavior, even among famiiy
and friends. R F ~~:~~ S LA4 X'~ J:~ ~+'~ ~.4.
In dealing with issues of social . acceptability, there is spread
throu4hout the world a body of
'unorganized facts and data that
be co a e wi gaps and
needs to
4xthree bas i c l evel s~~;r._~AV
The passive smoker level--smoking
is asserted to be socially unaccept-
able because it allegedly is damaging
to the health of others who happen
to be in the presence of smokers.,
When considering actions on social
acceptability issues the Working
Party feels the greatest immediate
needs for industry action are at
this passive smoker level.
Available research indicates that
smoking does not harm the health of
others who are nearby. This must be
sustained and firmly established as
"fact" in all public discussion
of the issue.
.The "courtesy" and "social cost"
-:levels of the social acceptability
rissue are also important, and deserv-
r;ing of careful -industry attention
~~
.
Still, the highest priority is P~ .=
assigned to the passive smokerlevel.
, )~.
~'.r'~A'~7~~r ,. ~ ° ~t.` fy,y'-
+ ~~5 ~~'w
~,~ $,
,.i~.~~.~~%.1 : n,i ~, ~ P .~.,<" ,,~y+~. N~
Page 6: sve84e00
,
i: ~ iiSr F 'Y': - x'y'.: ~`'~".t"~ ~~,~'
,( FY H' ~ a } '. i -' 1 r Y "" . :..'t7cPxi
I f~^~-~ `~f r
;~5~ ~~41..itf~'I.r_" ~ ~ .. i ` k h'f~ n _+ 't "~"+'~ *~~.°.
-3. i Y~ _ !"~.
~j
;
~;
i
ri
s
~
k
,
,q..-e, ~,g,,....-
~
.l ~
~
:
:
»
~ <.;,+.~.......i._. - ~ i-t~:i t~s. ,:ina f ~SF.
~6 The Working Party found
distinct correlation b
etween :
the extent of government actions
s:agai nst smoking and the i ntens i
f
`
l i
~
o
e
ti st/consumeri st/ci vi c;
ii
act v st pressures to castigate
_
smoking as socially unacceptable
~..'+~fK_ ,.~h.~4 I. ~
behavior. Judicial decisions
and bureaucratic rul i ngs tend to r`.;V
,,,,....
further dramatize and di gni fy
smoki ng efforts in the eyes of the ,~~,~;
publ i c.
+'' ~* a ~ ., ~ii"~c" '' '~'~
~:..
~a ,~
,
,
..~
Data on countermeasures indicates'"~~,
=°that only in a few countries has
-the cigarette industry commenced
~
r
any organized and systematic a-~~
..,,.
efforts to~improve the climate of ~~
,.
social acceptabi l i ty ;4 , fiN~
~-~~~
~
. jxf($k'c.
'
}
~
~R~--4 l y;:-~
lq~
;
'f:`~ti ~~
l~~
ke
~
~:
~
~
~''
'
',
..
{
y
l
,'
..
Y
.:
..
.
t
++~
r
`
, Anti-smoking efforts are internationaT=::
ized, with common strategies and
tactics implemented through the.}j~_'"r
worldwide networks of unified
~A*"
,
organizations such as the World ,sY :<
~
Health Organization, Cancer Societies,
_;
professional medical and heal th 4
associations, and religious ,?K_ ts
organizations) :.In the face of. ~~
'
this, the industry
s inability
.:-.organize a cohesive strategy limits :~.
z.,
the effectiveness of its counter-
measures. 6
, , , "
y } t e: ' !`' . C~` 2 .
. `~'"~~ ~'.:1` h"4c~F.~"d- ,vs~i, ~ K."h~'. ~4'`~^t .~F.s'L ' te~s~+"i-'~.z".'',~:%'
~ ~'..~.
±
..
; F
.?~ ?'+:7t
ti;k1r.
~'.
l
r:s r:d'
yi ...
~-. .:: :. '"~~3=
Page 7: sve84e00
Xne- ^1-*.v.r~~r s- ~p;, ~c
i4.. .~ '~`. { . .
SECTION I
` ~.' .
_ . . .INTRODUCT.ION TO COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY ANALYSES
~''K ~Y'w4 .. ' ~ 't«~ r n- -~5.~' c . ~a 7~`~' efr s .c +C..
~~&.n
~-
~'~t-"'.~?: a j ~. . 5 ~. , ',~ A ~....~''" 4-....IS'... ~{w.~., ~ ~, i~ S~ . ~"qr ~ G-Ej~,3.-i'..
__ ...~.....'~ , f ... _w', S . . ~~.< ~ ~~AM
~ y; . . . ._.. . . ... .. - - . _ . . ..
The Working Party's assignment from ICOSI calls for analyses of social acceptabilit
;
factors on a country-by-country basis. In selecting the countries to be used for =
their study, the Working Party considered the following factors
~~
~ ~
f ', r ~ a t ' ~'~
~ _
-.. . 1.,- Government Monopolies--countries 5 Data Availability--in selecting
;where the sale of cigarettes is countries and assigning them to
in the hands of a government mono-. individual members, the Working
poly were excluded from the study Party took into account the likelyl At ltt itayavailability of
data and the member
sampe. aaer sage m, ~ss to it through his company'-`+
become necessary to include some acce A.
of them because of their i nfl uence channel sq
on neighboring countries and theiril itit 6 Sity of Competitive Data the
impact on internatonansu.ecur
tions (WHO, Council of Europe, etc Working Party's selection of Mtic
~ C ~ . - 4 u
countries excluded any nation where,
;.L r _.. : " .... ::'. , , .. "`^ r ..t.-f ~ , .ir j~. . -x
Markets Where Total Bans onAdver- development of the data needed
for this study wouTd lead to b~~F*~
,
<- tising Already Exist--no attention, at this stage,was devoted by thedisclosure of confidential or
.
J;_ Working Party to markets where proprietary information about any ~~.
~
governments have already taken the individual company.
ultimate measures to stigmatize
res -~~¢~
the count i
smoking as socially unacceptable behavior Applying these factors,
selected and assigned to individual
task force members were as follows
d
and polarize public attitudes
against smoking (e.g:, Norway, ..
Finland, Italy, Singapore, Icelan ,
etc )': It is fel t, however, that
.. when relevant information becomes
available, consideration should be
given to "reopeni ng" the social ;
acceptabi 1 i ty i ssues -i n some of.
these countries.
Size/Makeuof Markets--countries
with oth smal - and large-size
2%:volume cigarette markets were in-
s~'~
~=T7 cluded, as were countries with
T+ -
f ~ differing social customs and
political systems.
fw
-~ . .
~"~~-:{ ?rZy~t~r e'Y^`}v: ,::.:...
Intensity of the Social Acceptability
:.:-.Issue--The Working Party concentrated
its sample in Western Europe and North
America where the issue of social
acceptability is apparently most
intense. It is assumed that develop-
lu. ments in these regions set the basic
patterns and trends for later publ i c
~,~{fy< and private approaches to social
acceptability issues in -other regions
*Subsequent to the assignment,it proved M`=
to be impossible to get up-to-date,;
accurate information from Argentina.
. y:...-
Page 9: sve84e00
P Where negative attitudes of the
government and public are aqains
Laws, restraints, and pressures against ~, cigarette smoking, the greater__i
the marketing and smoking of cigarettes the taxation of cigarettes.;,For
are not severe. example, in the United States during
the period 1964-1976, when the'"~~
negative attitudes toward smoking
developed broadly among the masses;~
the average weighted state cigarette
tax more than doubled, from 5.6t -:~
~
to 12.4~ per package.
Page 10: sve84e00
y,~ .3s _ - .. . ";~:
,.~Siar . _. . . . . . . + , . 0'
~~.
fn~..
~~~~~~ ~~-~T;, -~~,~a~~.-, ,..-~ ;, ''' acceptability re~
Influencing factors on the levels of social flect country-by-
country differences of social circumstances, institutions, public policies $ ,
and cultural outlooks.'~'Thus,-in terms of detail, the factors influencing
'each country's level form a unique pattern. .Yet,"-the Working Party finds ~
~that there are-23 general factors that deserve consideration on a worldwide
basis as primary influences on the social acceptability levelsin every
A~
h
,
.'~'~.~a~'~~~~~ ..`F . K,'".~__ .C! h rr,- ~~~
s~~~~^~~ 'l"' ~
sie~eS1~'LL ~
~
]
~
'~~k~~~E~'7
~
.
~
~
fi
~. i-.
SECTION IV t i` A~n >~
x
k
,j< .,..:,.5::. .. r'~ ."'.~ ~. _ ~-_.` ~'..~..~ x. . ~~- y . .,-.^ V ;, .
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON "INFLUENCING FACTORS"
~
^
{
~
3
SA
a"-.5r.`,n~_
~~~P
`,'~ Y~k" .... Y ~ 4S ~ 5~: <vt, c~ *"~ ~ 7~ ... ^Y'_'i..i.i ''.r+.\
~wb
~~`
~
~
y ~.:~~~
k~-
These possible ~nfluences are 1~sted on the following table :~~.~ ~
r-. +try;~;:.. ~~"~'h4!"."~~a~~i~~.,t'~~ra.~:~~2~~~~~'~a.~dS~~i`. ~~,~ ~}cNs~`.,~: '~''~';p^.'
l.. .
Each of ,the general factors was considered for each sample country The ten
most'important factors were selected for thosecountries where the social ~~'_
acceptab;ltyissue has been exploited most. In three countries where the
controversy has not yetrdeveloped into a"public issue,"it was not possible -~
fl
ifi
t i
b
i
i
uences.
n
gn
can
ng s
e
to identify as many as ten factors as
, ._. ~.._..
MIM.
The results of t
matrix' table.--
~r.
a
'
t yF
y
~x='~: P~. t ~ Es.~ k ",T z ~r r r . -" 1 " ^ :
~ ~ ~ Sa2 y
~
e country-by country rankings are also shown on the following ,
V4W W'
.~AVk 1'3'~~~~'~
h (
.
X
Y
~
~9d~~.7.~ii
~.:,~...,
~'~ X 4t-- a~'` TI~,.x
~ s.4;yi/.~4~ q~~ ,~~~~'_'~~~'Pa .3y a
To prepare this table, the members of each Working Party who is_most familiar;;-
with each sample country scored the relative importance of.the ten top factors..,-~
W.
influencing factor judged to be most important is given a score of 1110°,
with other scores scal i ng down to 11111 in decreasing order of importance ~.~ hA
n~t' ..o,..,,~;:~rE d`s x a,. t h!t.r ,:`i.~ ~" y ~. Z,..i"~c rr :3.v, X's`' ~. r y~, + o
t"r i Us f c~ti''~ `-~~'i ~lr
.-: ?.sqn e,c~`~~n~~''~'~t'xa"~~~~X-""`~x ~.-t-4 "`~ 1'.`Y- ,a ..-._ r. .=_ t . Y+YSCr~', ~. d.
x.Y~~~w i f';{ 'K._ `~',<.~ ~yna=.f.'~'~" :'~ '~c~'.it
Before summarizing the_findings and conclusions of this analysis, it is important
A
to stress that this is an exercise in judgment. '::It deals with "infiuences," ~~
not with precise "causes".and "effects." ..This type of analysis does not show -
'how the various influences operate together within each country.=Also, there
.is difficulty in analytically separating basic health issues (smoking affects
smokers) from social acceptability issues (smoking affects society)
x,*9- ?tx~ ~ Q,;y ~ r~~ ~ ~
~4 '~''r 't"~' . r ..' .r nar ,,~:~'+y, ~~.~%-1`'. )` ~' #h{, 7,ti'.;:l.t ,v~:.+.'!, ? :
,..`i, .~ .
On balance, however' , the Working Party believes that this analysis presents a .
~
~_fair estimate of the relative importance of social acceptability influencing
.factors. More importantly, it shows how certain types of influences cluster
,~on a worldwide basis. Based on this matrix analysis and subsequent group
~
discussion, the Working Party reached the following findings and conclusions .~..;
. .
~ -+.~. { ,~,~~ ~:_+ ,,y~, y y1 j. ~.yi'~t.y'N t~~~ J~ 1-Y~F ~ ~ f~,y' +.~ j ., ~f~ 1~ Y~ry~;y
'~yJti`~~.:t~v -.S`~1'g~~TF_ ,...j~"'°R -,~-Y f . ~'t~. _ ~. ..$ .t,`: ._ =.' S R'Y":.
1f'C"wi.v Ta f.7, .~.? y~ ~{~
:~.
'
Basic health issues are main root
based
Were it not for basic
.
.
smoking and health issues, the
By far, the most important basic
:influence on social acceptability Working Party concludes that there
j-<,issues are related to the well- would be no serious social acce ta-
bility issues':(The Appendix p~
~~ publicized alleged statistical associ 71
~4.;ation between smoking and alleged ~'contains a short essay that attempts
~
damage to the health of the smoker. I to link these two issues in the =
~
.Z . r ,-., .
% ~~
r United States.)
F ~ , Tt ~"" . S-+1-+~~,. ~"'n-0`rt1~ T ~. . .'. . ' Y
2 Social acce tabilit ti i
~ ed to basr ~
;
~~~ ealth issues in public attitudes. ~~ t r 3. --Ur e continued basic health researchl-
us, t e Working Party finds that ^s' ~< hus, there is a clear conc usTon t at
basic smoking and health issues the industry must continue sponsoring;
3"::form the major cornerstone on which research efforts desiqned to resolve
social acceptability issues are basic health issues.
- _
~
~
!+ ~ ~~~~..~( i~ti:p'~i' -.~°~j`r}~`~`,.<' Jry
#:~
!~It
caa
A-11-
,:~
