Abstract
This Philip Morris (a.k.a. Altria Group or PM) Corporate Affairs Plan for Europe (1994-96) is rich with corporate strategies to reverse the decline in social acceptability of smoking in Europe.
In the Plan, PM reveals its understanding that a huge majority of Europeans actually favor smoking restrictions in public places:
"Europeans are highly in favor of smoking restrictions in public places (82%) and 88% are in favor of clear separation in the workplace."
Despite this, PM planned to fight smoking restrictions with all resources it could muster.
PM viewed laws to protect worker health and safety as a threat:
"A proposed Directive was issued in early 1993 with the aim of protecting transport worker's health and safety...This is the biggest threat at European Community level which needs to be addressed."
The Plan also reveals PM as the organizing and driving force behind Smokers Rights Groups (SRGs) all over Europe:
"Smokers' Rights Groups (SRG's) are an essential medium for presenting [the tobacco industry's] views in favor of reasonable solutions because a) they have no commercial interest and, as such, are more credible voice than the tobacco industry and b) they are able to position themselves as a large but discriminated "minority" of individuals who have rights. The Plan foresees continued support [to SRGs] provided by PM/industry to the groups in Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Greece to help them expand in both number of members and in influence."
PM lamented the lack of organization among Smokers Rights Groups and anticipated the benefits that could accrue if the company assisted further in organizing them:
"The real weakness of the SRG network is the absence of any co-ordinating body or secretariat which can share information, techniques and ideas between the various SRG's. We should examine the feasibility of creating a pan-European SRG secretariat or Smokers' movement to... have an organization that can rightly claim to represent 100 million European smokers (and voters) which could function as a central media and lobbying "voice". Rothmans Int. have expressed their interest in this project and would co-fund with us."
PM also planned to foster and promote misunderstanding between the people of the United States and Europe to promote its own ends:
"Europeans believe that Americans tend to be fanatical extremists went it comes to public health issues. We shall take this opportunity to use US-sourced 'ETS excess stories' (dismissal from work over smoking, career discrimination due to smoking, etc.) to help discredit all anti-smoking initiatives -American as well as European."
And once again, PM reveals its strategy of hiding behind, and working through, third-party Libertarian groups to do its bidding:
"The Plan calls for using libertarian groups (e.g., Social Affairs Unit, Arise) whenever possible to communicate this message..."
PM's Plan also explains the logic behind its urgent efforts to preserve smoking on airplanes, despite the relatively small amount of time people actually spend on airplanes:
"Although the time a smoker may spend in the air and at the airport may not constitute a large amount of time relative to the amount of time spent in the workplace for example, bans on airlines are highly visible and may disproportionately contribute to the deterioration of the social acceptability of smoking."
Only a few of PM's planned strategies are listed in this summary or in the quotes below. The document contains much more information and, at only 13 pages, is worth a read in its entirety, especially for Europeans.
Fields
- Quotes
PHILIP MORRIS CORPORATE AFFAIRS EUROPE
SMOKING RESTRICTIONS 3 YEAR PLAN 1994-1996
I. SITUATION ANALYSIS:
The present Plan takes into consideration two major surveys which reveal current public attitudes in Europe towards smoking in general and smoking restrictions:
a) The EC Commission-funded Eurobarometer survey (March 1993) shows that 52% of Europeans believe ETS poses a health risk. "Passive smoking" is a problem which concerns
the majority of Europeans: 79% claimed to be exposed often or sometimes, and 83% of non-smokers are bothered by other people's tobacco smoke. Europeans are highly in favor
of smoking restrictions in public places (82%) and 88% are in favor of clear separation in the workplace.
b) The results of the PM Benchmark survey (end 1992) show that smokers are a under high and increasing degree of social pressure: 57 % of smokers feel uncomfortable when they smoke around non-smokers. Also, 86% of population believes ETS to be harmful. There is a growing support for restrictions in public places: 79% support bans and 60% favor legislative restrictions.
[From Page 2, Bates No. 2501342377]:
A proposed Directive was issued in early 1993 with the aim of protecting transport worker's health and safety. The European Parliament, in July 1993, amended this proposal to require that "appropriate measures must be taken for the protection of workers who are non-smokers against discomfort and health risks caused by tobacco smoke through the provision of separate enclosed areas for smokers and non-smokers. Where this provision is not possible or available, smoking must be prohibited." The scope of this proposal covers all forms of public transport. This is the biggest threat at European Community level which needs to be addressed.
[From Page 9 of the document, Bates Page No. 2501341384]
Smokers Rights Groups:
Smokers' Rights Groups (SRG's) are an essential medium for presenting views in favor of reasonable solutions because a) they have no commercial interest and, as such, are more
credible voice than the tobacco industry and b) they are able to position themselves as a large but discriminated "minority" of individuals who have rights.
- The Plan foresees continued support provided by PM/industry to the groups in Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Greece to help them expand in both number of
members and in influence. Increased assistance is needed to SRGs in Denmark and the UK which need to continue with their effective moderate approach.
- In the context of the next EC elections in '94, we will encourage and assist SRG's to become more politically active. Currently, their activities are essentially media-oriented.
- The real weakness of the SRG network is the absence of any co-ordinating body or secretariat which can share information, techniques and ideas between the various SRG's.
We should examine the feasibility of creating a pan-European SRG secretariat or Smokers' movement to a) improve communication between the groups and b) to have an organization that can rightly claim to represent 100 million European smokers (and voters) which could function as a central media and lobbying "voice". Rothmans Int. have expressed their interest in this project and would co-fund with us.
[From Page 10, Bates Page No. 2501341385]:
Media:
- Working with the media is key to maintaining the social acceptability of smoking. Europeans believe that Americans tend to be fanatical extremists went it comes to public
health issues. We shall take this opportunity to use US-sourced "ETS excess stories" (dismissal from work over smoking, career discrimination due to smoking, etc.) to help
discredit all anti-smoking initiatives -American as well as European. The Plan calls for using libertarian groups (e.g., Social Affairs Unit, Arise) whenever possible to
communicate this message...
...- Expand the ARISE scientific/libertarian group and assist them to gain more credibility by seeking the support of companies in the coffee, chocolate and alcohol business; thus, help ARISE to get more publicity and become more influential.
[From Page 2, Bates No. 2501342377]:
A proposed Directive was issued in early 1993 with the aim of protecting transport worker's health and safety. The European Parliament, in July 1993, amended this proposal to require that "appropriate measures must be taken for the protection of workers who are non-smokers against discomfort and health risks caused by tobacco smoke through the provision of separate enclosed areas for smokers and non-smokers. Where this provision is not possible or available, smoking must be prohibited." The scope of this proposal covers all forms of public transport. This is the biggest threat at European Community level which needs to be addressed.
[From Page 11, Bates No. 2501341386]:
General public
In order to maintain a favorable social environment and to promote smoking as a custom still socially acceptable in Europe versus the US, Philip Morris will develop in appropriate markets courtesy/tolerance campaigns and encourage implementation via the NMA's. The campaigns should seek a) reduce conflicts between smokers and non-smokers and therefore create increased receptivity to the accommodation programmes and b) ultimately, reduce
pressure for any legislative action.
[From Page 12, Bates No. 2501341387]:
We shall also continue to work favourable...contacts within Government circles both at EC and national level and in the media, directly andvthrough Smokers' Rights Groups activities.
...At the Member State level measures will continue to be taken to prevent smoking bans on EC-based airlines. Efforts to introduce or extend bans by EC-based carriers are expected in response to consumer preference and national regulation...Although the time a smoker may spend in the air and at the airport may not constitute a large amount of time relative to the amount of time spent in the workplace for example, bans on airlines are highly visible and may disproportionately contribute to the deterioration of the social acceptability of smoking.
- Company
- Philip Morris/Altria Group
- Author
- Organizational author: PM CORPORATE AFFAIRS EUROPE
- Recipient
- Presumed organizational recipient, PM Europe
RegionEurope
United States
United Kingdom
Belgium
Germany
Holland
Denmark
LitigationStmn/Produced
Operation/ProjectSocial AcceptabilityIndustry efforts to counteract the decline in social acceptability of smoking worldwide.
Named OrganizationAlitalia, Italian airline
Anti Smoking Organizations
ARISE, Assoc. for Research in Science of Enjoyment (Industry scientific front group promoting "pleasure")Association for Research in the Science of Enjoyment (1994)-Industry-funded scientific group out of the United Kingdom which proclaimed that a little pleasure is essential to good health. Created to combat tobacco control initatives. Previously knows as Associates for Research in Substance Enjoyment. Grouped tobacco use with pleasureable activities such as drinking tea, shopping, and eating chocolate.
Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers CECCM (Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers)Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers. Established in 1988 in the United Kingdom.
Brussels Tobacco Information Office
CDIT
Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers CECCM (Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers)Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers. Established in 1988 in the United Kingdom.
Ecosoc
Employers Assn
*EPA ( use United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Eurobarometer
European Community
European Community Advisory Comm on Heal
European Community Commission
European Confederations of Employers + O
European Parliament
European Trade Union Confederation
Horeca (Hotels, Restaurants and Catering/Cafes)European acronym for an association of hotels, restaurants and cafes or caterers in the European Economic Community. Also seen spelled as "Ho.Re.Ca" or referred to as the Horecasector. Businesses or individuals pay membership dues to belong to Horeca.
Horeca Assn
Iberia
International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") (International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IRAC"))International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC")
Intl Civil Aviation Org
Loi Evin
Lufthansa
Maastricht
Natl Mfg Assn
Permanent Representations
PMI (See Philip Morris Inc.)See Philip Morris Inc.
Rothmans International
S+T, Science & Technology Dept. (PM)
Sabena
Smokers Rights Groups (Groups set up by tobacco companies)Smokers Rights Groups (SRGs) were created clandestinely by the major tobacco companies of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds (usually through public relations firms) to produce the appearance of "grass roots" opposition to laws restricting smoking in public places. The U.S. SRG, set up by Philip Morris, was the National Smokers Alliance. European groups had names like HEN-RY, Smokepeace and FOREST.
Social Affairs
Social Affairs Unit
Sofres
Tdc, Tobacco Documentation Centre
Un, United Nations
World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)International organization concered with public health worldwide
9th World Conference on Smoking or Health
TypeREPT, REPORT, OTHER
Subjectsecondhand smoke
secondhand smoke strategy (Corporate strategy to deal with ETS issue)
Corporate strategy
industry activity
industry influence
industry response
industry strategy
smokers' rights group
legislation
Front groups
Document Images
Page 1: iyt22e00
PHILIP MORRIS CORPORATE AFFAIRS EUROPE
Sh7OKIN RESTRICTIONS 3 YEAR PLAN 1994-1996
I. SITUATION ANALYSIS:
The present Plan takes into consideration two major surveys which reveal current public attitudes
in Europe towards smoking in general and smoking restrictions:
a) The EC Commission-funded Eurobarometer survey (March 1993) shows that 52% of
Europeans believe ETS poses a health risk. "Passive smoking" is a problem which concerns
the majority of Europeans: 79 % claimed to be exposed often or sometimes, and 83 % of
non-smokers are bothered by other people's tobacco smoke. Europeans are highly in favor
of smoking restrictions in public places (82 %) and 88 % are in favor of clear separation in
the workplace.
b) The results of the PM Benchmark survey (end 1992) show that smokers are a under high
and increasing degree of social pressure: 57 % of smokers feel uncomfortable when they
smoke around non-smokers. Also, 86% of population believes ETS to be harmful. There is
a growing support for restrictions in public places: 79% support bans and 60% favor
legislative restrictions.
1. European Community
EY1SIltlg leI,CT~; C7/TOII
In 1989 the Council adopted a Resolution recommending banning smoking in public places.
This Resolution serves as an invitation to national governments to ban smoking in
establishments such as shops, hospitals, schools, entertainment facilities, sports facilities and
enclosed areas of undergrounds, railway stations, ports and airports as well as all forms of
public transport. Although Resolutions are non-binding, political pressure may be applied by
the Commission to encourage compliance. Indeed, some Member States have gone beyond the
strict interpretation of the Resolution to introduce legislation in other establishments such as
restaurants and cafes. Under the 1989 Resolution, Member States are required to report to the
Commission bi-annually on measures they have introduced to comply with this Resolution.
Also in 1989, a Directive on health and safety in the workplace was adopted, in line with the
EC framework programme on worker protection. This Directive, which like all Directives is
legally binding, is relevant due to the following provision which requires that "in rest rooms
and rest areas appropriate measures must be introduced for the protection of non-smokers
against the discomfort caused by tobacco smoke". "Rest areas" in this context refers
essentially to canteens and lounges away from the factory floor. This Directive was due to be
implemented into Member State legislation by 31 December 1992 with the exception of Greece
which has a 2 year derogation. The majority of Member States have yet to transpose the
requirements into national law.
2501341376
Page 2: iyt22e00
Proposed le,tTislatioir
A proposed Directive was issued in early 1993 with the aim of protecting transport worker's
health and safety. The European Parliament, in July 1993, amended this proposal to require
that "appropriate measures must be taken for the protection of workers who are non-smokers
against discomfort and health risks cau`sed by tobacco smoke through the provision of separate
enclosed areas for smokers and non-smokers. Where this provision is not possible or available,
smoking must be prohibited." The scope of this proposal covers all forms of public transport.
This is the biggest threat at European Community level which needs to be addressed.
We can also envisage, at earliest 1995, a proposal for a stricter Resolution on public place
smoking which may be extended to explicitly include the HORECA sector. Also in 1995 we
can expect proposed Directives (legally binding) specifically related to smoking in the
workplace and public places, on the premise of worker protection; severe restrictions or
potentially a total ban may be proposed. We predict 1995 for both of these initiatives because
the new 5 year term college of Commissioners will be in place. With both the Maa.stricht
debate and the main part of enlargement negotiations behind them, the Commission will again
be forward looking and confident to introduce new measures stretching their legal competence.
Furthermore, the effects of the EPA classification as well as the IARC ETS Study will have
filtered through to provide further justification for Community-level initiatives.
2. Member States
Legrslntrve activity Leading up to the Plan period there has been a gradual trend at the national
level toward
regulating smoking in both the workplace and in public places.
- In 1987 a Royal Decree was enacted in Belgium banning smoking in certain public places.
The law has not been actively enforced. As the Plan indicates this has presented an unusual
opportunity for PM to take a proactive role.
- In 1992 the U.K. implemented the 1989 EC Directive on Health and Safety in the Workplace.
Today, most large U.K. companies have not only adhered to the law by adopting smoking
policies but some have banned smoking entirely. One survey of workplace smoking practices
indicates that of all Member States the U.K. has the highest proportion of employees covered
by a smoking policy.
- Probably the single most significant event setting the stage for the Plan period was the
implementation of the Loi Evin in France on November 1, 1992 and its first year anniversary in
1993. Tlus legislation was conceived in France, rather than in response specifically to EC
legislation, and places limits on smoking both the workplace and public places, most notably
including restaurants and cafes. Adherence to and acceptance of the law in large workplaces
appears high. However, both survey research and media reflect consistent resistance to
mandated restrictions in the hospitality sector. An October 1993 survey by SOFRES for the
French tobacco trade association (CDIT) reported that 71% of those surveyed felt
2501341377
Page 3: iyt22e00
that smoker/non-smoker conflicts should be resolved privately, relying on courtesy and
tolerance, and that legislation was not necessary.
There are two implications of the Loi Evin. The adverse publicity stemming from restrictions
in restaurants and cafes has undermined the relevance of the law. However, the workplace
provisions and the fact that a leading member of the EC adopted such a law in the first place
establish an unfortunate precedent for the rest of the Community.
- On March 31, 1993 Belgium enacted a Royal Decree affecting smoking in the workplace.
The legislation is quite favorable as it stipulates only that employers "establish conditions for
tobacco use during work hours" and that these be based on "reciprocal needs of smokers and
non-smokers ... (and in) respect of individual liberties, courtesy and tolerance." In contrast to
the Loi Evin, the Belgian law sets a favorable precedent for legislative solutions in other
Member States.
- There has been legislative activity elsewhere in the EC. In Italy six bills were proposed
between 1990-1993 which would restrict smoking. In Spain there have been restrictions
enacted at the regional level. And in Germany some regional governments have imposed
smoking restrictions in government owned premises.
PriI~crle ltlaknlace irritinlii,es
- Trends toward regulating smoking in the workplace in the absence of legislative requirements
are still modest with thlexception of the UK, where the law merely requires that companies
introduce a smoking policy ; but the UK has the highest proportion of workplace bans. In
general the most severe restrictions on smoking on the job still are in response to legislation
such as in France. However, where there are laws, and more importantly where there are
none, the challenge is to assist employers to develop smoking policies which accommodate
smoking. Thus, even the U.K. offers an opportunity to work within the framework of existing
law to assist employers to accommodate, rather than ban, smoking.
- Threats to workplace smoking also reflect pressure from the insurance sector which is
increasingly offering lower rates to non-smokers. Work compensation claims by non-smokers
exposed to ETS also affect employers' insurance costs and may prejudice them to ban smoking
rather than face higher insurance costs to cover worker compensation claims. Again, the U.K.
has set the pace in the EC with recent landmark cases.
- Employee complaints may also stimulate purely voluntary initiatives to restrict or ban
smoking. Rather than mediate the differences between smokers and non-smokers, if the social
acceptability of smoking is on the decline, the employer may opt for a severe restriction or ban
rather than accommodation.
~
cn
0
~
cc
.r~-
I.-
co
v
oo
Page 4: iyt22e00
3. International
There are three events which are international in scope but which are expected to have an
immediate effect on the EC during the Plan period.
- The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is undertaking an 11 country
study to examine the health effects of ETS on non-smokers. IARC is affiliated with the
WHO which indicates the strong possibility that the findings will likely be critical of ETS
and receive significant publicity. The epidemiological study is original research based on a
survey questionnaire. Preliminary data may be available as early as summer 1994 with
published findings expected to be released towards summer 1995. IARC has significant
standing among public health professionals and regulators around the world. Therefore, it
is expected that IARC's conclusions will provide an impetus for further smoking restrictions
internationally in the same way that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's study on
ETS did in the U.S.
- The "IX World Conference on Smoking or Health" will take place in October 1994 in
Paris. It is anticipated that the meeting will call for increased tobacco regulations overall,
including more stringent smoking restrictions. It is also possible that national health
ministers will feel compelled to introduce measures beforehand in order to demonstrate their
commitment to the anti-tobacco agenda of the conference.
- In 1992 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.N. agency, adopted a
resolution urging its member countries to ban smoking on passenger airlines by July 1,
1996. This timetable was recently moved up to December 7, 1994. While the resolution is
not binding, the resolution does put pressure on individual countries to restrict smoking.
- U.S. trends restricting smoking in general and U.S. corporate policies that apply to their
international offices will also affect developments at the Member State level.
H. OVERALL OBJECTIVES
Protect our consumers ability to smoke in the workplace and in public places
Prevent adverse legislation either through advocating model/reasonable legislation where
conditions permit or by acting on legislative initiatives to ensure that the impact is as favorable
as possible
. Promote private sector policies in both the workplace and in public places that accommodate
smokers
Mitigate the impact of the IARC ETS Study
2501341379
The objectives relate to impact on consumption as well as public sensitivity to social
acceptability.
Page 5: iyt22e00
III. IARC ETS STUDY
OBJECTIVES
Seek the most accurate and objective wording of the study conclusions and official statement
results
. Mitigate potential negative bodies
V/ Regulatory and legislative bodies
V/ Media
V/ Private sector workplace policies
V/ General public's perceptions about ETS
STRATEGY
The study will be addressed from two perspectives. From the perspective of the scientific
outcome of the study, we will attempt to establish relations with the IARC researchers both in an
effort to seek a balanced assessment of the issue and to track the status and likely outcome of the
study. Simultaneously, we will develop communications and government relations activities that
will seek to mitigate the impact and influence the study may have on public policy and public
opinion.
ACTION PLAN
- PM will t.ake the initiative to manage the industry's plan to deal with the ETS study. We have
established an internal team and through it will coordinate not only PM's worldwide plan but also
the intra-industry task force set up to coordinate efforts on IARC.
- Relations with IARC headquarters in Lyon and in the 11 participating countries will be
established in an effort to communicate to the researchers relevant information on ETS science
and the methodological issues surrounding the use of epidemiology. Contacts will also be used to
follow the progress of the study so that our communications strategy will be well informed.
- We will also consider a proactive initiative with IARC in Lyon whereby we would collaborate
on a full blown risk assessment regarding ETS.
- Communications activities will be designed to offset the adverse consequences that are
anticipated from the completed study. In conjunction with S&T (Neuchatel) background
information on IARC, ETS and epidemiology in general and specific to the 11 collaborating
countries will be compiled and made available to the media, policy makers and opinion leaders.
The inapplicability of using spousal studies, which is the approach IARC is taking, as a basis for
workplace and public place restrictions will also be emphasized. As appropriate, media briefings
will be conducted in key markets prior to the study release to educate social and scientific
journalists about the science of ETS and the shortcomings of basing public policy on
epidemiological date. 2501341380
Page 6: iyt22e00
- In markets where tougher smoking restrictions are expected in response to the IARC study,
government contacts will be briefed before and after the study is released in an effort to prevent
new restrictions.
- Allies in the unions, employer organizations and the Horeca sector will also be briefed to secure
their opposition to additional restrictions. 4
IV. SMOKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE
1. OBJECTIVES
Promote voluntary workplace policies based on accommodation
. Lock in model legislation where conditions are appropriate thereby preventing adverse
legislation
Delay EC action
2. STRATEGY
The Plan requires a mix of voluntary and legislated options to secure reasonable workplace
smoking policies at the Member State level and which together would also delay any
Community legislation. In some markets, the adoption of voluntary workplace smoking
policies may alone be sufficient to prevent or substitute for national legislation. In other
cases, reasonable national legislation may be sottght to lock in favorable conditions in
markets where smoking remains socially acceptable and the legislative timing is right to
make that sentiment a statutory requirement. Support from employer organizations will be
necessary. Timing is key in being sensitive to opportunities to shift the emphasis between
voluntary and legislative solutions.
3. ACTION PLAN
Following an analysis of implementation into Member State law of the 1989 Workplace
Directive's requirements for protection of non-smokers in rest rooms, we will focus on those
countries where the Directive has not been implemented to advocate and lock in reasonable
legislation following the example of Belgium, based on the evaluation of threat and timing in
those Member States. Where unreasonable legislation is being introduced at regional level
within Member States, we shall, where appropriate, supersede this with reasonable national
legislation again based on the Belgian workplace law.
2501341381
Page 7: iyt22e00
We shall mobilise Unions and Employers to oppose unreasonable legislative restrictions and to
promote local solutions based on accommodation. The focus will be on members of national
bodies who are represented on influential EC-Committees (EC Advisory Committee on Health
and Safety, ECOSOC, and the European Confederations of Employers and of Unions)
Concurrently, we shall encourage the' adoption of reasonable voluntary smoking policies in
privately owned offices and factories to avoid, if possible, restrictive legislative action. In the
majority of state-owned companies, smoking bans are already the norm.
Ventilation standards must continue to support smoking, to avoid de facto smoking bans.
Thus, we will continue relationships with EC and national standards bodies, to ensure any
modified standards are not detrimental.
Because severe legislation is often a reaction to anti-pressure, we shall make a concerted effort
to counteract the pressure of the antis, particularly BASP, by creating a Brussels-based
Tobacco Information Office based on the effective national examples whose task will be to
disseminate "favourable" and balanced pro-industry messages, findings and studies.
To implement the above action points, it will be necessary to prepare "model" legislation
appropriate to those Member States where legislation is not currently on the books as well for
EC level.
To implement the actions identified above, contacts will be established with a number of
government bodies, allies and third parties. Following are some of the key groups that have
been targeted and who we will communicate with during the Plan period.
Brussels based EC Institutions:
We shall continue to work the European Parliament encouraging MEPs to pose favourable
questions to the EC Commission (anti-ban, pro-accommodation, pro-subsidiarity). We shall
also continue efforts to establish close working relationships with relevant European
Commission officials to avoid unreasonable EC legislation. At such time as an EC proposal for
a workplace smoking ban becomes inevitable we shall dialogue closely with relevant officials
during the drafting stage and encourage unions and employers in particular, to act in concert.
At such time as a formal proposal is issued, we shall work closely with the European
Parliament Rapporteur and key coordinators as well as with Social Affairs attaches of the
Permanent Representations to either encourage withdrawal as of the proposal under
subsidiarity or, failing that, to ensure the proposal is amended in line with our objectives.
2501341382
Page 8: iyt22e00
National Employment/Health and Safety Policy Makers:
In order to delay EC action we shall dialogue with supportive governments (UK, Germany,
Holland and Denmark) to encourage their opposition to EC legislation on the grounds of
subsidiarity. At the same time we shall work with those governments where the 1989
Directive has not been implemented to encourage the adoption of favorable national legislation
(Belgian example), coupled with guidelines for effective implementation. At such time as an
EC proposal is unavoidable we shall seek to shape the EC initiative by promoting the Belgian
model as the EC "solution" and demonstrating that accommodation works and can be
implemented effectively (versus bans which are often ignored).
Employers:
Employers and employer organizations are key players in securing our objectives during the
Plan period. Employers are the locus of any activity related to smoking policies - voluntary or
in adherence to legislation - that can accommodate smoking. Employers also can and should
be encouraged to help influence the legislative process. Communications with employers
consists of three elements.
1. Human resource managers will be surveyed to ascertain their attitudes toward
smoking related issues in their companies and to identify elements of a workplace
smoking policy that would work. Surveys will be undertaken in countries which both do
(U.K., Belgium and France) and do not (Holland) currently require policies.
2. Based on the survey date noted above, we would develop a model workplace policy
for employers that would be applicable in offices and factories. Using the national
tobacco manufacturers associations, PM or a human resource consultancy, that policy
would then be promoted to hurnan resource professionals through a combination of
options including direct mail, trade press advertising and commentary, and presentation
to employers in professional organizations. The model policy would be supported by
evidence that smoking bans will decrease employee productivity, evidence
accommodation works, and that without employers' opposition an EC Directive
mandated smoking bans would be imminent.
3. As part of our ongoing dialogue with Employers' Associations we shall encourage
their preemptive opposition to EC action, on the ground that self-regulation based on
accommodation works, both with national ministries and direct to the EC Commission
via relevant EC Committees.
Unions:
Unions are important allies to support the adoption of policies accommodating smoking in the
workplace. Their support will be secured directly at the national level and, through the
national bodies to their EC representation via European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).
Access to national union leadership will be made through both the national tobacco workers
unions and the national tobacco growers unions, where feasible.
2501341383
Page 9: iyt22e00
Alliances may also be established via the building construction sector where jobs may be
created by retrofitting existing buildings to improve ventilation systems in response to
requirements for improved indoor air quality.
Unions will be approached with a variely of arguments responsive to their interests including:
Excessive government and management intervention in general is contrary to workers'
interests
Smoking bans set a precedent for prohibitions on other matters of personal choice
Banning smoking is a scapegoat that allows management to avoid addressing the real
indoor air quality problems in the workplace that should be addressed
Smoking bans discriminate against one group of employees, disproportionately
affecting blue collar workers
Smoking bans can be abused by management as an excuse for disciplinary action
Smoking is one of many lifestyle choices that should be free of external control
EC and/or national smoking bans/restrictions may be imminent unless action is taken
Smokers Rig_hts Groups:
Smokers' Rights Groups (SRG's) are an essential medium for presenting views in favor of
reasonable solutions because a) they have no commercial interest and, as such, are more
credible voice than the tobacco industry and b) they are able to position themselves as a
large but discriminated "minority" of individuals who have rights.
- The Plan foresees continued support provided by PM/industry to the groups in Italy,
Spain, France, the Netherlands and Greece to help them expand in both number of
members and in influence. Increased assistance is needed to SRGs in Denmark and the UK
which need to continue with their effective moderate approach.
- In the context of the next EC elections in '94, we will encourage and assist SRG's to
become more politically active. Currently, their activities are essentially media-oriented.
- The real weakness of the SRG network is the absence of any co-ordinating body or
secretariat which can share information, techniques and ideas between the various SRG's.
We should examine the feasibility of creating a pan-European SRG secretariat or Smokers'
movement to a) improve communication between the groups and b) to have an organization
that can rightly claim to represent 100 million European smokers (and voters) which could
function as a central media and lobbying "voice". Rothmans Int. have expressed their N
interest in this project and would co-fund with us. o
i .
f."
W
oD
-4
Page 10: iyt22e00
Media:
- Working with the media is key to maintaining the social acceptability of smoking.
Europeans believe that Americans terid to be fanatical extremists went it comes to public
health issues. We shall take this opportunity to use US-sourced "ETS excess stories"
(dismissal from work over smoking, career discrimination due to smoking, etc.) to help
discredit all anti-smoking initiatives -American as well as European. The Plan calls for
using libertarian groups (e.g., Social Affairs Unit, Arise) whenever possible to
communicate this message.
- Identifying opportunities/events to criticize the "EC Brussels" interference into national
sovereignty and promoting the Maastricht principle of subsidiarity will help us achieve our
main objective which is to delay any EC action.
- Expand the ARISE scientific/libertarian group and assist them to gain more credibility by
seeking the support of companies in the coffee, chocolate and alcohol business; thus, help
ARISE to get more publicity and become more influential.
- We shall educate the media and particularly the social and scientific journalists. Social
(society/economic issues) journalists need to be briefed to call their attention on examples of
workplace policies which accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. In parallel,
selected top 50 scientific/health journalists in the general news media need to be briefed on
scientific deficiencies of many ETS studies prior to the release of the IARC study results.
The program involves extensive collaboration with S&T.
Opinion leaders:
Although several National Manufacturers Associations (NMA's) communicate effectively
on a number of issues, there is at present no organisation acting as a counter-balance to the
anti-tobacco activists (particularly the Commission-funded BASP organization) which
targets its publications at key Brussels and pan-European opinion leaders. Both CECCM
and the TDC are prevented from doing so by virtue of their mandates or structures. As a
result, policy makers and the media get only one side of the story, which is prejudicial to
the industry and to smokers.
- There is an urgent need to start examining the creation of a Brussels-based Tobacco N
Information Office to regularly publicize favourable news to our key audiences (policy Q
makers and media) on various topics such as scientific information, public opinion data,
W#favourable legislative/voluntary developments and libertarian opinions/events. ~-
w
cx~
cn
