Image source: Nathan Hughes Hamilton/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Key Points

• Indonesia is a country in Southeast Asia, part of the World Health Organization’s South-East Asia Region.
• It is the fourth most populous country in the world, with a population in 2022 of 275.5 million.
• Tobacco use prevalence is high, particularly amongst men. 34.5% of all adults were current tobacco users in 2021, including 65.5% of men.
• Indonesia has neither signed nor ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. As a non-party, it is ineligible to join the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• The Indonesian tobacco market is dominated by local manufacturers PT Gudang Garam Tbk and PT Djarum, as well as Philip Morris International.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in Indonesia include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with tobacco marketing, both at point of sale and online, as well as via event sponsorship; and sponsorship of popular sports such as badminton and football.

According to the authors of a 2023 paper, “Indonesia has a high smoking prevalence that has not diminished significantly since 1990”. This has been driven by male smoking rates which remain amongst the highest in the world.¹² It is the only country in Asia to have neither signed nor ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC),³ and nor is there any comparable national framework for tobacco control.¹ Industry interference in policymaking is ongoing, as there is no effective legal mechanism to prevent it.⁴⁵ Smoking has long been a part of Indonesian culture, particularly for men, something which tobacco companies have exploited through aggressive marketing tactics that aim to reinforce smoking as a normal or even essential masculine behaviour.⁵⁶ This high degree of social acceptability means that the government treats the industry as a legitimate stakeholder.⁷ One key challenge, therefore, is to de-normalise tobacco use, as part of a comprehensive tobacco control plan.⁷⁸

Tobacco Use in Indonesia

The link between smoking and masculinity is deeply embedded within Indonesian culture.⁸⁹ This has been reinforced by tobacco marketing which associates tobacco products with characteristics traditionally considered masculine, such as strength, heroism and self-control.⁸⁹

In 2021, tobacco use prevalence amongst adults was 34.5%; 70.2 million adults were current users of tobacco.¹⁰ Nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of Indonesian men reported using tobacco, compared to around 3% of women.¹⁰

In 2019, nearly 20% of students aged from 13 to 15 reported tobacco use.¹¹ Around 36% of males in this age group reported current tobacco use compared to 3.5% of females.¹¹

Kreteks – cigarettes consisting of tobacco, cloves and flavourings such as chocolate, dried fruit and coffee – are by far the most popular tobacco product in Indonesia. According to government figures from 2017, kreteks accounted for more than 95% of the cigarettes sold that year.¹² The cloves provide a unique flavour and smell, and also contain eugenol, a chemical compound which reduces the harshness of the smoke.¹³ In 2021, close to 30% of all Indonesian adults – around 60 million of the country’s 70 million adult tobacco users – reported smoking kreteks.¹⁰

There were an estimated 246,000 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in Indonesia that year.¹⁴ Research published in 2022 estimated the total cost of smoking to the Indonesian economy in 2019 at between Rp184.36 trillion (US$13 billion) and Rp410.76 trillion (US$29 billion).¹⁵ The same study found that direct healthcare costs accounted for between Rp17.9 trillion (US$1.3 billion) and Rp27.7 trillion (US$2 billion), most of which is covered by the Social Security Agency for Health, equivalent to 57-59% of total direct expenditure on healthcare.¹⁵

Tobacco in Indonesia

Market share and leading brands

In 2022, market research company Euromonitor International put the value of the Indonesian tobacco market at over US$34 billion.¹⁶ It is the second-largest cigarette market in the world.¹⁷

The market leader in Indonesia is the local kretek manufacturer PT Gudang Garam Tbk (Gudang Garam), with nearly one-third of the market in 2022.¹⁸¹⁹

Its closest competitor is Philip Morris International (PMI), with a slightly smaller share.¹⁸ PMI operates in Indonesia via its subsidiaries PT Philip Morris Indonesia and PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (Sampoerna).¹⁸²⁰ At the time of its acquisition by PMI in 2005, Sampoerna was the leading tobacco company in Indonesia.²⁰²¹

PT Djarum (Djarum), another local kretek producer, has the third-largest market share, around half that of the two leading companies.¹⁸²²

Like PMI, other transnational tobacco companies have sought to expand into Indonesia by acquiring local companies. In 2009, British American Tobacco (BAT) bought an 85% stake in PT Bentoel Internasional Investama Tbk (Bentoel) – at the time the fourth largest tobacco company in the country.²¹ In 2011, the South Korean company Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) – which has a partnership with PMI for its newer nicotine and tobacco products – bought a controlling share of Indonesia’s sixth-largest tobacco company, PT Trisakti Purwosari Makmur.²¹²³ Similarly, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) acquired two Gudang Garam subsidiaries, Karyadibya Mahardhika and its distributor, PT Surya Mustika Nusantara, in 2017.²¹ However, BAT, JTI and KT&G each had market shares of less than 2% as of 2022.¹⁸

In 2022, the top four brands of cigarette in Indonesia were all kreteks. Gudang Garam has around one-third of the market. Djarum, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe (the latter two both PMI/Sampoerna brands) each have around a one-tenth share. Others, including PMI’s premium cigarette Marlboro, have smaller shares.²⁴

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Indonesia, see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Tobacco farming and child labour

Tobacco is grown in Indonesia almost entirely on small, family-run farms, and 90% of production comes from just three provinces: East Java, Central Java, and West Nusa Tenggara.²⁵

In 2021, Indonesia reported production of over 237,000 tonnes of raw tobacco, making it the fourth largest producer in the world after China, India and Brazil.²⁶ Production has varied since 2010, from a low of less than 127,000 tonnes in 2016 to a high of nearly 270,000 tonnes in 2019. However, the overall trend in recent decades has been upwards, as shown in the graph below:

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1980 to 2021.²⁷ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

The area harvested under tobacco crop also increased by over 30% between 2000 and 2020, to nearly 220,000 hectares.²⁸

A 2017 report by the World Bank found that poverty was widespread amongst tobacco farmers in Indonesia. Nearly three-quarters of tobacco farmers were poor compared to around one-tenth of the general population.²⁹ Most tobacco-farming households received some form of government social assistance, and more than 60% reported food insecurity.²⁹

Research published in 2020 found that Indonesian tobacco farmers would be better off economically if they grew other crops or pursued alternative, non-agricultural livelihoods.³⁰ Tobacco is also vulnerable to adverse weather conditions in comparison to other crops. In 2016, a period of much higher-than-average rainfall, while non-tobacco farmers made a modest income, tobacco farmers’ income was almost zero.³⁰

Tobacco-farming households had significantly higher labour costs than those growing other crops.³¹ Tobacco farmers also used child labour, both hired and household, more frequently compared to those growing other crops.³⁰ Similarly, more children from tobacco farms missed school.³⁰ Farmers reported using child labour because tobacco growing does not usually pay enough to hire adult workers.³⁰

An investigation by The Guardian in 2018 visited the village of Beleke, on the island of Lombok, where it found almost all children above the age of four doing tobacco work during harvest season.³² This followed a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2016, which stated that thousands of children work in tobacco farming in Indonesia. HRW found children engaged in dangerous work in four Indonesian provinces, interviewing more than 130. They reported serious health and safety issues, including acute nicotine poisoning as a result of handling tobacco leaves (also known as green tobacco sickness) and contact with pesticides and other chemicals.²⁵

HRW’s interviews with tobacco farmers and traders revealed a lack of human rights due diligence in the tobacco supply chain in Indonesia, particularly regarding child labour.²⁵ The farmers and traders interviewed supplied large Indonesian and transnational companies including Gudang Garam, Sampoerna, Djarum and Bentoel.²⁵

• For more information on the tobacco industry and child labour, please see the pages on CSR: Child Labour and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT).

Tobacco and the economy

Given its high level of tobacco consumption, Indonesia has long been a net importer of tobacco leaf, despite also being a major producer.³¹ In 2022, it imported over US$617 million in raw tobacco, compared to around US$266 million in exports.³³³⁴

However, it is a net exporter of cigarettes: over US$913 million in 2022, compared to US$118 million in imports.³⁵³⁶

In 2020 the WHO reported that the contribution of the tobacco industry to the Indonesian economy was relatively small; tobacco manufacturing generates just 0.6% of total employment, while tobacco farmers represent only 1.6% of the agricultural workforce. Most families involved in tobacco growing and kretek rolling also receive some form of social assistance – meaning that the Indonesian state is essentially subsidising poorly-paid employment in the tobacco industry.³⁷

Illicit trade

A study published in 2019, which collected packs of cigarettes from respondents in Indonesia, found that 20% of the 1,440 smokers surveyed reported ever smoking illicit cigarettes. However, among the 1,201 packs researchers collected, only 20 (i.e. 1.6%) had no excise stamp, a fake excise stamp, or no graphic health warning – and hence were potentially illicit. Price appears to be a factor, with people on lower incomes more likely to purchase illicit cigarettes, though consumption of illicit cigarettes was not found to be a long-term behaviour.³⁸ However, a 2021 study estimated that the share of illicit cigarette consumption in the country increased from 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018.³⁹

Globally, Free Trade Zones (FTZs) are well known to facilitate the illicit tobacco trade.⁴⁰ There are four FTZs in Indonesia, where cigarette production and trade are exempted from excise duties, making the price much lower. Cigarettes leak from these FTZs, becoming illicit in the process, as the packs bear no excise stamps.⁴¹ In August 2023, Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission announced that a senior official from the Bintan Free Trade and Port Zone had been arrested on charges of data manipulation and receiving bribes from cigarette companies, to allow greater flows of duty-free cigarettes through the zone.⁴²

Internal industry documents suggest that historically, BAT has been involved in illicit trade in Indonesia and the broader region.⁴³ A 1994 internal BAT document points to Indonesia – along with Malaysia – as a conduit of illicit products to the Philippines.⁴⁴ A BAT-commissioned study from the 1980s also documented Indonesian consumers’ preference for its smuggled products.⁴⁵

As part of the third round of the Philip Morris International initiative PMI IMPACT, PMI is funding the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance, an Indonesian think tank, to “examine the market for NTHRPs [nicotine and tobacco harm reduction products] and how to prevent illicit trade in this growing sector, with research to include surveys and limited group discussions”.⁴⁶

• For more information on PMI IMPACT, please see the following pages: PMI IMPACT, List of Successful PMI IMPACT Applicants and Organisations linked to PMI IMPACT.

Tobacco and the environment

Indonesia is the world’s second-biggest contributor to marine plastic pollution after China, responsible for 1.29 million tonnes of debris entering the ocean annually.⁴⁷ Of this waste, cigarette butts are the most commonly-littered item.⁴⁸ The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control has estimated the cost of tobacco-related marine pollution and waste management in Indonesia at Rp49 trillion (US$3.1 billion) per year.⁴⁹

• For more information, please see the page on Tobacco and the Environment and the long read on Plastics, the Environment and the Tobacco Industry.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Indonesia is not a party to the WHO FCTC, and is therefore ineligible to join the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. As of 2023, there appears to be little political will either to ratify the WHO FCTC or to create a comparable national framework for tobacco control. This has led to a fragmented approach across different government departments and prevented the development of coherent tobacco control policies.¹

However, Indonesia has committed to an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) five-year plan on health, under which it has pledged to reaffirm collective positions against industry interference and for implementation of control measures, for both tobacco and alcohol.⁵⁰

In 2009, the passage of Law No. 36 authorised the Ministry of Health to introduce tobacco control regulation, including on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS); smoke-free spaces; and packaging and labelling of tobacco products.⁵¹ This was followed in 2012 by Indonesia’s principal tobacco control law, Government Regulation 109 (PP 109/2012).⁵¹ These laws prohibit smoking on public transport, and in educational facilities and places of worship, though other types of enclosed public spaces, including workplaces, restaurants and government facilities, may provide smoking areas.⁵²⁵³ More stringent regulations at the subnational level are permitted.⁵² As of June 2023, 456 (around 86%) of Indonesia’s 520 cities and districts had adopted smoke-free policies, though implementation remains a challenge.⁵⁴

Indonesia is one of the few countries that still permits tobacco advertising on television, though it may not be broadcast until after 9:30pm.⁵²⁵¹ While Law No. 36 and PP 109/2012 also introduced graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco packaging and banned misleading terms such as “light” and “low-tar”, the law was not retroactive for tobacco products that already had these words in their branding, and other misleading features – such as colours, numbers and symbols – are still permitted.⁵²⁵¹

As of 2024, various other limitations remain. There are no restrictions on internet sales or the sale of individual cigarettes (single sticks); there is no national law regulating the sale, use, advertising, promotion, sponsorship, packaging or labelling of e-cigarettes; and tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) is still permitted.⁵¹⁵³ Cigarettes in Indonesia also remain relatively cheap. In 2022, the price of the bestselling brand of cigarettes was just over US$2.⁵³

In 2018, President Widodo issued a decree containing a list of government regulations to be revised, which included PP 109/2012.⁵⁵ Tobacco control advocates have seen this as an opportunity to push for stronger regulations, such as larger GHWs, higher excise taxes on cigarettes and a comprehensive ban on TAPS.⁵⁵ However, this process has stalled, amidst conflict between different government ministries and opposition from farmers’ associations and other groups (see section “Use of third parties”).⁵⁵ As of March 2024, the revision of PP 109/2012 had yet to advance.

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by Country/Jurisdiction – Indonesia, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
• Country profile – Indonesia, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023

Interference in Indonesia by Tobacco Industry and Allies

Tobacco industry tactics in Indonesia include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with tobacco marketing, both at point of sale and online, as well as via event sponsorship; and sponsorship of popular sports such as badminton and football.

Use of third parties

The tobacco industry has long used third parties and front groups to advance its interests, as a means of achieving greater credibility and overcoming public mistrust.

The Indonesian Tobacco Farmers’ Association (Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia, APTI), a lobby group, opposes the WHO FCTC, and has urged the Indonesian government not to ratify the treaty.⁵⁶ It has also frequently lobbied against increases in excise taxes on tobacco products. In 2019, APTI held a rally in front of the Ministry of Finance, to demand the repeal of an increase in excise and the retail price of cigarettes, and the revision of a regulation requiring at least 50% of the Tobacco Excise Revenue Sharing Fund to be allocated to health purposes.⁵⁷

APTI has also opposed the proposed revision to Indonesia’s main tobacco control law, PP 109/2012. In 2022, in Temanggung, a major tobacco-growing region in Central Java, APTI representatives were seen at a public event displaying banners asking the local government for support in opposing the proposal.⁵⁸ APTI also sent official letters to President Widodo opposing the revision, stating that it would negatively affect the livelihoods of people working in the tobacco sector, particularly farmers.⁵⁵

Another lobby group which has opposed of any revision of PP 109/2012 is the Indonesian Tobacco Community Alliance (Aliansi Masyarakat Tembakau Indonesia, AMTI), a coalition of tobacco industry stakeholders – including cigarette manufacturers – established in 2010.⁵⁹ It reportedly has close links to the PMI subsidiary Sampoerna.⁶⁰⁶¹ AMTI has sought to portray tobacco control as an agenda imposed on Indonesia by foreign actors who do not understand the local context – a common tobacco industry tactic in the country.⁶²⁶³

Both APTI and AMTI are affiliates of the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA), a global front group funded and run by the ‘Big Four’ transnational tobacco companies (TTCs), as well as two major leaf merchants.⁶⁴⁶⁵⁶⁶ Though ITGA claims to defend the interests of tobacco farmers and their communities around the world, it uses tobacco farmers as a means of opposing tobacco control regulations and protecting the interests of the TTCs.⁶⁶

Controversial marketing strategies: targeting youth

The tobacco industry has long seen young people as a vital target market; tobacco use generally starts in adolescence. In Indonesia, the mean age of smoking initiation amongst males is 18.3 years, while smoking prevalence amongst Indonesian adolescents (aged 10 to 18) increased from 7% in 2013 to 9% in 2018.⁶⁷⁶⁸

In Indonesia, there is a high concentration of tobacco retailers, high exposure to point-of-sale advertising and no restriction on the display of cigarette packs in retail outlets – all of which are associated with increased tobacco use amongst adolescents.⁵³⁶⁸⁶⁹ In addition, many retailers are located close to schools; enforcement of the ban on sales to minors is very weak; while sales of single sticks, which make smoking more accessible to young people, are still permitted.⁶⁹⁶⁸⁷⁰ Retailers therefore have an important role in recruiting new, young smokers, and maintaining growth of the market.⁶⁸

Indonesia’s incomplete TAPS regulations have also allowed the tobacco industry to switch to less regulated forms of advertising such as event sponsorship and internet marketing, often targeting young people.⁷¹

For example, the popular music festival SoundrenAline, which has been running in Indonesia since 2002, was founded by Sampoerna.⁷² Following a visit to SoundrenAline 2016, researchers reported that Sampoerna branding and the slogan “Go Ahead” were found throughout the festival site. Sampoerna A brand cigarettes were widely sold, including by cigarette girls and boys – a form of direct one-on-one marketing.⁷¹⁷³ Cigarettes that were not a Sampoerna brand were confiscated at the entrance.⁷¹ As of 2022, Sampoerna was still the sponsor of the event and owner of the registered trademark for “SoundrenAline”.⁷²

With over 111 million users, Indonesia has one of the world’s largest Instagram audiences, over half of whom are aged between 13 and 24.⁷⁴ According to the Tobacco Enforcement and Reporting Movement (TERM), as of 2023, around 70% of online tobacco marketing in Indonesia took place on Instagram.⁷⁵⁷⁶ Most of this marketing is indirect and community based. Rather than display their products directly, the tobacco companies build online communities of followers with a common interest such as music, travel or sport, as a means of improving brand visibility and indirectly promoting their products.⁷⁶⁷⁵

Controversial marketing strategies: sponsorship of popular sports

Tobacco industry sponsorship of sport is as old as professional athletic competition itself.⁷⁷ It aims to create links between pre-existing associations people may have with sports (such as fun, excitement, strength, etc.) with tobacco branding and products; promote an image of tobacco use as normal and healthy; and appeal to young people.⁷⁸

In Indonesia, TAPS has historically been very widespread in popular sports.⁷⁹ Badminton, for instance, which the New York Times has described as part of Indonesia’s “national identity”, has long been a vehicle for tobacco industry sponsorship.⁸⁰ From 2006, Djarum was the corporate sponsor of the national badminton trials for children and adolescents aged from 5 to 18.⁸¹ The trials were shown on national television, and participants were required to wear clothing which displayed the Djarum logo.⁶⁸⁸¹

Ten civil society organisations reported Djarum to the National Commission on Child Protection, arguing that the sponsorship violated Indonesia’s child protection law.⁸¹ In 2019, Djarum agreed to remove its logos from the badminton trials.⁸²⁸³ It also withdrew its sponsorship from future trials, which critics argued would undermine development of young talent. However, in 2021 the state-owned telecommunications firm Telkom replaced Djarum as sponsor.⁸¹

Djarum owns the PB Djarum badminton club in Kudus, Central Java, which has a youth academy, as well as a club in Jakarta.⁸⁰⁷⁵⁸⁴ The company also continues to market itself and its products indirectly via Djarum-associated social media accounts which focus on badminton-related content.⁷⁶⁷⁵

An investigation into tobacco marketing on social media in Indonesia, India and Mexico around the 2022 FIFA World Cup found that 92% of the football-themed tobacco marketing originated from Indonesia, with 81% being produced by Djarum alone.⁷⁹

Both Gudang Garam and Djarum, via their respective brands Intersoccer and Super Soccer, sponsored live World Cup viewing parties. Super Soccer, which describes itself as the “home of soccer fans in Indonesia”, promotes its activities on social media to hundreds of thousands of followers.⁷⁹ It developed a “Soccerphoria” event series and campaign specifically for the World Cup, which were heavily promoted across its accounts. As well as the live viewing parties, these events involved mural painting, branded clothes, and limited-edition World Cup cigarette packs designed by local artists.⁷⁹

In 2019, Djarum bought the Italian Serie B club Como 1907, via its subsidiaries SENT Entertainment Ltd and Mola TV. Mola, a television streaming service, has broadcast a reality TV series following 24 young footballers trying to succeed at Como 1907.

• For more on this topic please see the pages on Football Sponsorship and Social Media.

Relevant Links

• Indonesia factsheet, Tobacco Atlas
• Indonesia Tax Scorecard, Tobacconomics
• Dashboard Kawasan Tanpa Rokok [Smoke-Free Area Dashboard], Indonesia Ministry of Health
• Situation reports: Indonesia, Tobacco Enforcement and Reporting Movement, Vital Strategies
• Indonesia, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance
• Front Groups Indonesia, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs
• Greenwashing
• Gudang Garam and sports endorsement
• Lobby Groups
• Tobacco Industry Tactics

References

The post Indonesia Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• Menthol and flavoured cigarettes are widely available in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) many of which have high smoking rates
• LMICs have young populations – flavours appeal to young people, who may not understand the harms of flavoured tobacco
• Recently high-income countries have put bans in place; at the same time there has been marked growth of menthol market share in some LMICs
• There is a lack of regulation to reduce the appeal of flavours e.g. plain packs and advertising bans at point-of-sale or near schools
• Targets for new and improved bans include flavour capsules, and flavour references on packaging and cigarette sticks
• A ban on all flavourings may be easier and more effective in preventing product substitution
• A lack of data, especially in low-income countries, hinders the development of good regulation
• Multinational tobacco companies can threaten income from tobacco exports if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place

This page covers flavoured tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).⁸⁵⁸⁶

Background

Flavoured tobacco products are available in various forms around the world, including products previously only used in particular regions or countries. For example in Indonesia, the vast majority of smokers use kretek, clove-flavoured cigarettes,⁸⁷⁸⁸ and they are now available in other countries.⁸⁹⁹⁰

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.⁹¹

Here we focus on what are often called ‘conventional’ products, like cigarettes and cigarillos, which are sold by large transnational tobacco companies (TTCs): Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands (IMB, previously Imperial Tobacco) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) (JTI also owns Nakhla in Egypt, which produces flavoured waterpipe) We summarise findings from Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) research on the extent of flavoured and menthol cigarette use in LMICs and the development of the market for ‘capsule’ products (cigarettes with flavour capsules in the filter).

We describe specific challenges for LMICs, including flavour regulation and evidence gathering. We then summarise flavour market evidence and research, first relating to LMICs in general and then by World Health Organization (WHO) region and individual countries (where available).

• For general background and evidence, including information on the global market, and details of specific bans and associated industry interference, see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco.

For details of product regulation at country level, see the searchable database on the Tobacco Control Laws website, published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK). For countries that are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) progress towards implementation of relevant articles, including newer products, is detailed in the FCTC implementation database

Specific challenges for LMICs

LMICs with no ban often have other major tobacco control policy gaps that are not necessarily menthol/flavour related but worsen the negative impact of menthol/flavours.⁹² One such policy is plain, or standardised, packaging,  which can include restrictions on flavour descriptors as well as colours on packaging which are known to signify flavour (e.g. green for menthol).⁹³ However, plain packaging policies have yet to be implemented in many countries, including some high-income countries, so this would be a significant challenge in LMICs. Another relevant policy is the prohibition of marketing, especially near schools.⁹⁴

Governments have more conflicts of interest in tobacco growing areas as they receive much needed foreign currency for tobacco exports,  and multinational companies can threaten this income stream if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place.⁹²⁹⁵  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.⁹⁶⁹⁷

Regulatory challenges

The WHO published brief guidance on the regulation of menthol and flavoured tobacco which summarised some regulatory options including restrictions on: the sale of menthol branded products,  the use of menthol at noticeable levels (giving a ‘characterising flavour’),  or banning any menthol ingredients.⁹⁸  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.⁹⁸ This was the case with the European Union (EU) menthol ban which only came into full force in 2020, after the tobacco industry had successfully lobbied for a delay. Testing for characterising flavour is more difficult and expensive than a ban on ingredients; this makes banning menthol as an ingredient particularly efficient for LMICs.

The WHO noted that:

“A ban on all flavour agents that increase tobacco product attractiveness, rather than focusing on menthol exclusively, can provide an alternate route to restricting menthol, and may prevent the unwanted introduction of menthol substitutes.”⁹⁸

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,⁹⁹ there were very few research papers from countries in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region, and Africa.

Lack of data means that it is hard to monitor markets and company shares in specific countries.  Market research service Euromonitor (which receives project funding from Philip Morris International) includes no low-income countries and is proprietary, making it expensive and hard to access even for the middle-income countries which are included.

More research is needed on menthol and flavour in LMICs to help governments monitor the tobacco industry and its products, as recommended by the WHO: “An evidence base using data collected from the region of interest can provide more direct support for regulation.”⁹⁸

Market in LMICs

Evidence suggests menthol and flavoured tobacco products are widely used in LMICs.  Data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project suggests that menthol is smoked by more than 20% of smokers in several middle-income countries. Although the dates vary (see the note above on data challenges) this research gives an indication of the scale of the problem. The highest rates were found in Zambia (42% in 2014) and Thailand (35% in 2012). Kenya and India also had over 20% menthol smokers, with China just under just under that level.¹⁰⁰

A study from Johns Hopkins University, between 2015 and 2017, found a range of flavoured and capsule cigarettes on the market in those LMICs with the highest number of smokers: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam.¹⁰¹

The main TTCs operating in these countries (PMI, JTI, and BAT) mostly sold menthol or mint flavours. China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) sold  a mix of flavours.¹⁰¹

There is also evidence from a number of studies that menthol and flavour tobacco use is rising, either as a proportion of the market or substantively.  Evidence from TCRG research shows that after the implementation of the European Union (EU) menthol ban in 2020, there was a marked increase in the share of menthol/flavoured products in some LMICs.⁹⁹ A study of cigarette packs in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam, between 2013 and 2016, found that the number of flavour capsule variants on the market was growing.¹⁰² Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.¹⁰²

A number of studies have identified related marketing activities.  Marketing strategies for flavour capsules are likely driving their global growth particularly among young people in LMICs.¹⁰³

TCRG’s review  of tobacco industry strategies underpinning the growth of menthol/flavoured tobacco use in LMICs  highlighted widespread marketing in stores (including retailers near schools), on billboards, on TV, online and via brand ambassadors. The packaging of flavoured and menthol products, legally displayed in stores, was  found to be colourful with non-conventional, appealing names for flavours.⁹⁹

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.¹⁰⁴ Researchers studying this form of marketing in LMICs have described the space on a cigarette as “valuable communicative real estate” for tobacco companies, which could be better used to display public health messages.¹⁰⁴

Research and data from specific regions and countries is summarised below. We refer in many places to TCRG research based on 2019 cigarette market data from Euromonitor. In this data ‘high market share’ means 20% or more of the total cigarette market in that country in 2019. ‘High market share growth’ means that the share doubled between 2005-19 and was growing from 2017.⁹⁹ We link to regional and country profile pages on TobaccoTactics, where available.

Africa

Nigeria has high menthol/flavour market share and high market share growth.⁹⁹

Cameroon has high market share, the only other country in the region for which this data was available. (For Egypt see Eastern Mediterranean region below.)⁹⁹

Tanzania

JTI sells a menthol cigarette called Sweet Menthol through its subsidiary in Tanzania. It describes this product as “the leading local mainstream menthol brand”.¹⁰⁵

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.¹⁰⁶  On its webpage for Zambia, JTI describes itself  as a leaf farming company, and does not mention that it sells cigarettes in the country. A locally owned company, Roland Imperial,  also sells menthol cigarette brands.¹⁰⁷

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.¹⁰⁸ Menthol was most commonly used among younger smokers, those with a middle income, and those that don’t smoke every day. Over a third of smokers indicated that they thought menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol.¹⁰⁸

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹ In 2018, 21% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol or sweet menthol (although Euromonitor estimates that only 7% of cigarette sales are menthol).⁹⁹  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

Ethiopia

In 2015, Ethiopia enacted a total flavour ban on all forms of tobacco.

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

This was a pre-emptive ban as flavour sales were low. However there has been a lack of enforcement at the retail level.⁹² Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.⁹² There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.⁹⁸

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.¹¹⁰

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.⁹⁹ Guatemala and Peru have high market share and high market share growth. There is high market share in Columbia and the Dominican Republic, and high market share growth in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica.⁹⁹

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.¹¹¹  According to BAT’s annual report in 2014,  sales of  flavour capsule cigarettes had increased in the region despite price rises, while overall cigarette sales were down.¹¹²

A study of over 1,000 retailers located close to schools in Latin American cities (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Peru) found that the majority (85%) sold flavoured cigarettes, and most (71%) sold capsule versions.⁹⁴ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)¹¹³

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁹⁴ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.¹¹⁴

Brazil

Survey data from 2016-2017 among adult smokers in Brazil found that over 50% supported a ban on menthol and over 60% supported a ban on all additives.¹¹⁵ Support did not vary across sociodemographic groups. When menthol smokers were asked what they would do if menthol cigarettes were banned, a third reported they would quit, around 20% would reduce the amount they smoked and a similar number would switch to non-menthol cigarettes. Slightly fewer said they would still find a way to get menthol cigarettes.¹¹⁵

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.¹¹⁶ 13% believed that menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol cigarettes, and over a third reported that they were smoother on the throat and chest.  Nearly two thirds  of surveyed smokers supported a complete ban on all cigarette additives, including flavourings.¹¹⁶

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.¹¹⁷

• The tobacco industry has used a range to tactics to undermine and delay Brazil’s menthol ban. For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Chile

In 2013, Chile sought to implement a law banning substances that cause higher levels of addiction, harm or risk, leading to tobacco industry resistance and interference.⁹⁸

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Mexico

Studies of retailers in Mexican cities, found that the majority sold menthol and flavoured products, and more than half of stores situated near schools sold flavour capsule cigarettes.¹¹⁸¹¹⁹ Many flavoured cigarettes have descriptors which suggest there is a flavour, but the type of flavour is unclear: chemical analysis of dual flavoured cigarettes suggested flavours were menthol and another flavour, for example fruit.¹²⁰

A study in Mexico City found that colour and flavour descriptors on cigarette packs made the products more appealing, and some smokers believed they would taste better.¹²¹

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.¹²²

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.¹²²

South East Asia & Western Pacific

There is high market share of menthol/flavour in India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, and high market share growth in Vietnam.⁹⁹  A 2010 study noted that governments in the region had no legislation banning exotic flavours of cigarettes and cigarettes with new flavours had appeared in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.¹²³

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.¹²⁴ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.¹²⁵

Menthol packs studied in the Philippines were harder than non-menthol (for capsule protection) giving a quality feel. Flavoured capsule brands had a greater technological appeal,¹²⁵ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.¹²⁶

Blue and white packs were perceived to be less harmful than other colours, as were the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘cool’, whereas the term ‘strong’ was perceived as more harmful.¹²⁶  Researchers called for greater action and support for banning flavour additives.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, menthol cigarette marketing has been aimed at young people and women.  In the 1980s Brown and Williamson’s Newport menthol cigarettes were marketed in Malaysia with youthful American images and were sold at a cheap price point.¹²⁷ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ¹²⁷¹²⁸ A 2003 study noted that the menthol variant of Cartier Vendome (a BAT brand at the time) was described as ‘pearl tipped’ so likely to appeal to women.¹²⁹

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.¹³⁰

China

In China ‘flavour capsule’ was found to be one of the most common cigarette terms used in online tobacco marketing.  One website explicitly linked flavour capsules with female smokers.¹³¹

Indonesia

In Indonesia the dominant cigarettes are kreteks which are flavoured with cloves.  Industry attempts to introduce their own cloved flavoured products had failed at least to 2004.¹³²  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.¹³³ In 2009 PMI launched the first super slims kretek for women and Marlboro black menthol for young men.  By 2012 BAT had launched several kretek brands. Both companies were aware that kreteks  are particularly carcinogenic due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds: Anethole, Coumarin and Eugenol.¹³³

In Indonesia the flip lid of the cigarette packet was used by Esse (owned by Korean Tobacco & Ginseng, KT&G) to promote the brand with phrases evoking flavour, like “sweet surprise” and “its honey”.  Research found seven cigarette brands with capsules.  Flavours included mint, menthol, berry and honey.¹³⁴

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .⁹⁹

• See also Waterpipe for information on the role of flavours in promoting these products.

Eastern Europe

Data shows that in Russia menthol/flavour has both a high market share and high market share growth.⁹⁹

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.⁹⁹

Relevant Links

WHO Advisory note: banning menthol in tobacco products (2016)

WHO Case studies for regulatory approaches to tobacco products: menthol in tobacco products (2018)

WHO FCTC decision on banning waterpipe flavour (2016)

A global map of menthol bans is available on Tobacco Atlas: Product Sales

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco
• Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK

TCRG Research

A growing menace: menthol and flavoured tobacco products in LMIC, M. Zatonski, K. Silver, S. Plummer, R. Hiscock, Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2022;20(April):39, doi:10.18332/tid/146366
STOP research summary (May 2022)

Marketing of flavour capsule cigarettes: a systematic review, C. Kyriakos, M. Zatonski, F. Filippidis, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 18 January 2022, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057082[/ref]

Flavour capsule cigarette use and perceptions: a systematic review, C.N. Kyriakos, M.Z. Zatoński, F.T. Filippidis, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 04 October 2021, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056837

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to TCRG publications.

References

The post Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

What is waterpipe?

Waterpipe has different names in different countries such as narghileh, shisha, hookah, hubble-bubble, or goza.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) as “a form of tobacco consumption that utilizes a single or multi-stemmed instrument to smoke flavoured or non-flavoured tobacco, where smoke is designed to pass through water or other liquid before reaching the smoker”.¹³⁵ Some countries have developed their own definition of waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS).¹³⁶

The origin of WTS is somewhat unclear. In the late 19th century, it was popular among older men in the Middle East but with the introduction of sweetened and flavoured tobacco in the early 1990’s, waterpipe use surged among youth, and expanded globally, through universities and schools.¹³⁷¹³⁸

Social acceptability of waterpipe use has increased, due to the growth of ‘café culture’ in the Middle East and globally, becoming the focus of social gatherings of young people, as a waterpipe can be shared by a group of friends over an extended time, with a slow puff rate. Tourists have taken the waterpipe habit back to their countries, and expatriates from the Middle East have opened waterpipe cafés and restaurants around the world.^135138139140In this way waterpipe has spread beyond the Middle East and become integrated into the global tobacco market.¹⁴¹ While there are restrictions on tobacco advertising in other regions, products have been promoted throughout the Middle East via satellite television, internet and social media. As these media are largely unregulated the industry is able to circumvent most advertising bans (see below for more on product regulation).^139140135

Transnational tobacco company interests

Historically, transnational tobacco companies had little interest in waterpipe tobacco smoking. A review of tobacco industry documents showed no focus on waterpipe tobacco or its accessories, except for some ‘waterpipe-inspired’ products that did not become mainstream in the market.¹⁴²

This was the case until  2012, when Japan Tobacco International (JTI) acquired Egyptian company Al Nakhla.¹⁴³ At the time Al Nakhla was globally the largest company manufacturing waterpipe tobacco products.¹⁴⁴ However, even this was perceived as a strategy to enhance the sale of cigarettes.¹⁴²

In 2019, Philip Morris International (PMI) filed a patent ‘Shisha device for heating a substrate without combustion.’¹⁴²  However, as of 2023, this product had not yet appeared on the market.

• See Waterpipe market below for details on companies, brands and market shares

Use

Image 1: Waterpipe device (Source: Waterpipe Briefing, National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training/Jawad et al 2013)¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶

Waterpipe tobacco is smoked using a device like that in image 1. As the smoker draws from the mouthpiece, a piece of lit charcoal heats the waterpipe tobacco leaf within the head of the apparatus. This heat generates smoke that travels through the device’s body and enters the water-filled bowl. By inhaling through the hose attached to the top of the bowl, the smoker pulls the smoke through the water, resulting in bubbles, before finally inhaling the smoke via the mouthpiece. Typically, the head is filled with flavoured and sweetened, and it is separated from the charcoal by a perforated aluminium foil. While the specific design and characteristics may vary across different regions, the fundamental principle remains consistent: the smoke is filtered through water.¹³⁹

E-hookahs or e-shisha or hookah pens are not waterpipe devices as they do not involve burning charcoal. These are classified as electronic nicotine devices, similar to e-cigarettes, where a sweetened liquid is electrically heated creating an aerosol to be inhaled.¹³⁵

• For more information on e-cigarettes and other product types see Tobacco Industry Product Terminology

The role of flavour

The traditional type of waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) uses unflavoured types of leaf (Ajami, Tumbak, or Jurak). However, since the 1990s flavoured tobacco has become more popular.^139140135

The most common type is Maasel (or Mo’assel), or ‘honeyed’ tobacco, which consists of one-third tobacco and two-thirds honey and fruit flavours, usually a combination of tobacco, molasses, glycerine and fruit flavours.¹⁴⁷. A review looking at waterpipe use in the USA, Canada and the UK has shown that young adults use waterpipe mainly for its appealing flavours, always preferring it over other tobacco products.¹⁴⁸  A study among , adults in Lebanon indicated that the introduction of novel tobacco flavours contributed to people initiating WTS and increased its use.¹⁴⁹ Similarly, a study from Iran indicated that the wide variety of flavours has as well contributors to the increase in prevalence of smoking among youth and women. The different flavours were considered ‘tempting’.¹⁵⁰

• For information on the appeal of flavoured tobacco products see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Health effects

Evidence shows that waterpipe, like other tobacco and nicotine products, is addictive.¹⁵¹

As with cigarettes and rolling tobacco the smoke of waterpipe is toxic and carcinogenic. One study identified 27 known or suspected carcinogens. ¹⁵²As a waterpipe is often shared, it is also a mode of transmission for communicable diseases, a particular concern during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵³ Consequently, waterpipe has both  short-term and long-term harmful health impacts on people who use it, and additional harms for those exposed to second-hand smoke.^135154155156

Among many groups of users there is a belief that the smoke of waterpipe is filtered in water, making it less harmful than cigarette smoking. This perception has contributed to a growing popularity and acceptance.^139140135 For example research from the UK found that:

“[w]aterpipe was perceived to be safer than cigarette smoking due to the pleasant odour, fruity flavours, and belief that water filtered the toxins.”¹⁵⁷

However, waterpipe contains similar or greater levels of toxic substances, leading to the same cellular effects as conventional products, leading to pulmonary and arterial diseases.¹⁵²¹⁵⁸

Prevalence

A 2018 systematic review, which included 129 studies from 68 countries, found that use of waterpipe was highest among adults in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). However, among youth, prevalence was similar in Europe and EMR. Comparing WTS between adults and youth, globally the study reveals that smoking is higher among youth.¹⁵⁹

A WHO advisory note about waterpipe, published in 2015, indicated that although waterpipe smoking was traditionally associated with the Eastern Mediterranean region, Southeast Asia and Northern Africa, its use is growing globally among youth and adults of both genders. Use is particularly increasing among schoolchildren and university students. Research reported in the WHO advisory note ¹⁴⁰ and a study from Lebanon indicates that the shape, colour and size of the apparatus contributed to the popularity of WTS product mainly among women.¹⁶⁰

Africa

Research in South Africa from 2012, shows that 20% of poor high-school students reported using waterpipe daily, and 60% reported ever having used one.¹⁶¹ A study in Western Cape from 2013, reported higher figures: 40% current use, and 70% ever use.¹⁶² Even among medical students, use may be relatively high; a study in Pretoria in 2010 found that nearly 20% of participants had used a waterpipe at some time.¹⁶³

The Americas

Although there is limited research on waterpipe in Latin America, some has been conducted in the United States (US) and Canada. In US a national study of 104,434 university students, published in 2014, shows that after cigarette smoking, waterpipe smoking was the most frequent form of tobacco use (8.4%, compared to 29.7% for cigarettes), and over 30% reported using waterpipe at some time.¹⁶⁴ In Canada, although cigarette smoking among young people had significantly decreased, waterpipe use increased by 2.6% among young people between 2006 and 2010.¹⁶⁵

Eastern Mediterranean

This region has the highest prevalence of waterpipe use. Studies (1999 – 2008) suggest that waterpipe use was more frequent than cigarette smoking among children aged 13–15 in most countries of the region.¹⁶⁶ It also increased in multiple countries, with prevalence ranging from 9% to 15%.¹⁶⁷

Europe

Evidence compiled in 2012 showed that, among people aged 15 years or over, 16% had tried waterpipe at least once. Studies suggest waterpipe prevalence ranging from 35-40% in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, but below 10% in Malta, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. Use was growing sharply in Austria, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg.¹⁶⁸ In England, data from 2013 indicated that for people aged 16-18 the level of waterpipe smoking was low, at 3%.¹⁶⁹

However, a study looking at adult smoking in England using a nationally representative cross-sectional survey found that since then pipe, cigar or waterpipe smoking increased five times – from around 150, 000in 2013 to over 770, 000 in 2023. Cigars was the most used of the three product types, closely followed by waterpipe, and the increase was higher among young adults.¹⁷⁰.

South-East Asia

Studies (2008 – 2011) suggest that waterpipe prevalence among men was just over 1% in Bangladesh, and in India, and much lower in in Indonesia and in Thailand (0.3%). Fewer than 1% of women use waterpipe in India Bangladesh,  Indonesia, and Thailand.¹⁷¹¹⁷² However, waterpipe “hookah” bars and restaurants are becoming increasingly common and are most often frequented by young people.

Western Pacific

Waterpipe is called “bong” and is different in design from the popular Middle Eastern waterpipe, and therefore is often not included in waterpipe studies. It can be made of bamboo, metal or glass and is used in China, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, and Vietnam. In 2010 in Vietnam around 13% of males aged or over 15 used bong.¹⁷¹

Regulation

In many higher income countries, waterpipe products are exempted from tobacco control policies. In many lower income countries, even if there is a policy, enforcement is very weak. Although flavouring is a major factor in the appeal to young people, flavour bans often do not cover waterpipe tobacco products. Consequently, the use of waterpipe has increased globally, largely unchecked.^139140135138

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) identifies tobacco products as “products entirely or partly made of the leaf tobacco as raw material which are manufactured to be used for smoking, sucking, chewing or snuffing”.¹⁷³ This definition covers waterpipe tobacco products. WHO FCTC issued COP decisions specifically for waterpipe tobacco control:

• At COP3 in 2008, Parties were invited to consider introducing health warnings and messages on tobacco packages, including waterpipe, and to use innovative measures requiring health warnings and messages to be printed on instruments used for waterpipe smoking.¹⁷⁴
• At COP6 in 2014, Parties were invited to strengthen the implementation of WHO FCTC on waterpipe, including conducting surveillance of its use and research on its market. This decision also invited the Secretariat of the Convention to work with the WHO to support countries in waterpipe control.¹⁷⁵
• At COP7 in 2016, more detailed instructions were given to Parties, including to ban the use of flavourings in waterpipe tobacco products.¹⁷⁶
• At COP8 in 2018, there is a decision on the implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC (Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products, including waterpipe, smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products), including the establishment of an expert group to examine the reasons for low implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.¹⁷⁷

The full list of articles covering waterpipe are listed in the Fact sheet: Waterpipe tobacco smoking & health.¹³⁵

In January 2016, the Secretariat of the WHO FCTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The American University of Beirut making it the global knowledge hub for WTS, in particular with respect to education, research, and the dissemination of information that contributes to the implementation of the Convention. ¹⁷⁸

In 2018, the WTS knowledge hub submitted a report to the WHO FCTC COP8 that summarized Parties’ regulations concerning waterpipe.¹⁷⁹ This report was updated in 2022, and found that, of the 90 countries reviewed, over half (47) had policies relating to waterpipe.¹³⁶ The majority of policies, nearly 45%, were in Europe and around 21% in EMR.¹³⁶

For up-to-date information on tobacco regulation, see the Tobacco Control Laws website, published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK).
Information on progress by parties can be found in the FCTC Implementation database.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many countries temporarily banned the use of waterpipe as part of their efforts to stop the spread of the infection.¹⁵³ In EMR alone, 17 countries banned waterpipe tobacco use in public places.¹⁸⁰

Waterpipe, along with heated tobacco products, had been exempted from the EU flavour ban, stipulated by the 2014 European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and implemented in 2020. A new directive was issued in 2022 and came into force in 2023. This removed the exemption, bringing regulation of these products in line with cigarettes and hand rolled tobacco.¹⁸¹¹⁸² This means that waterpipe tobacco with a “characterising flavour” can no longer be sold legally in the EU. For more information see Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK.

Waterpipe market

According to advocacy group It’s Still Tobacco, the region with the largest global market share of WTS is the Middle East and Africa (MENA), a range estimate for the two years2016-2017 to be 54% to 69% in.¹⁸³

The WTS market is still concentrated in the Middle East and Africa, followed by  Europe.¹⁸⁴ Market analysis company Valuates estimated that as of 2022 the global WTS market was worth over US$ 800 million, forecast to nearly double by 2029.¹⁸⁴

Market research company Euromonitor International publishes data on waterpipe, as part of the broader pipe tobacco category. It is therefore hard to estimate global market shares specifically for waterpipe tobacco. However, it is possible to identify specific waterpipe brands in the data. In 2022, JTI held the largest share with Al Nakhla, making up nearly 13% of the entire pipe tobacco market, followed by Al Fakher and Eastern brands (including Moassel) at around 12% and 8% respectively.¹⁸⁵

Tobacco industry interference

The waterpipe industry is multidimensional, composed of both tobacco and non-tobacco actors, including third parties. Interference can therefore be less obvious, making it difficult to develop effective WTS policy.¹⁸⁶ However, there is some evidence of the tactics used by the industry and its allies.

Tobacco industry tactics used to interfere with and undermine regulation relating to waterpipe include:

Use of third parties

The third-party technique includes creating, funding and empowering allies and front groups.

The public representation of the WT industry primarily revolves around the hospitality sector (waterpipe cafes, bars, and restaurants).¹⁸³ Products are promoted online by users via social media, rather than WT companies.¹⁸³  A study from Lebanon indicates that, following the passage of the tobacco control law, enforcement of a ban on indoor smoking came to a halt due to the lobbying of policy makers by establishments where waterpipe was available.¹⁸⁷

In 2012, the hospitality sector in Lebanon commissioned Ernst & Young (now EY) to evaluate the effects of the smoke-free law on their financial revenue and impact on employment.¹⁸³¹⁸⁸

Spreading misleading information

Waterpipe companies have published misleading information, including on the risks of tobacco products.

A study of 16 company websites indicated that most (n=12) published misleading marketing information This was mostly prominent among non-MENA companies (n=8) compared to MENA companies’ websites (n=4).   Several companies in Jordan (Al-Rayan, Al-Tawareg, Al-Waha, and Mazaya) were found to have disseminated misleading information on the quality and safety of WTS.¹⁸³  WTS charcoal companies in particular published misleading information about charcoal being ‘100% natural’ and ‘free of chemicals’.¹⁸³

Another study looking at marketing materials at a European trade fair,  and from the MENA region, found the prevailing message was that waterpipe is less risky compared to cigarettes.¹⁸⁹

Industry science

Al Fakher Tobacco Trading LLC, the second largest WT company, has a ‘shisha science’ section on its website and publishes its own research. A poster of a study published on its page indicates that the paper was presented at the CORESTA Smoke Technology Conference, in 2019. The study argues that a comparisons of Total Particulate Matter (TPM) yields between waterpipe and cigarettes do not provide meaningful information to inform an assessment of relative risk of its products.¹⁹⁰

For information on science websites of transnational tobacco companies, see:

• Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products

Illicit trade

Although cigarettes form most of the illicit tobacco trade, there is some evidence of illicit trade relating to waterpipe, specifically in the Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asian regions.¹⁸³¹³⁵.

Research from Turkey indicates that the majority (up to 99%) of waterpipe tobacco is illicitly traded, reflecting the significance of the informal economy in the waterpipe tobacco market.¹⁹¹ The illicit products are from both unauthorized domestic production, and increasingly tobacco smuggled from other countries, reported to taste better than locally manufactured products.¹⁹²

OLAF, the European anti-fraud office, has identified suspicious shipments of waterpipe tobacco heading into Europe. In 2022, OLAF detected a truck carrying 20,000 kg of waterpipe tobacco as it was leaving Türkiye on its way to Denmark.¹⁹³

Tax evasion

There have been some documented cases of the under reporting of imports and exports of waterpipe tobacco, in order to evade tax.

In 2022, New Zealand changed its taxation law related to WTS to base it on product weight rather than the content declared by importers, as the customs authority suspected that some importers had been under-declaring tobacco content in order to avoid paying tax. ¹⁹⁴

In 2023, the Mozambique the tax authority seized two containers of waterpipe tobacco, reporting the lack of a proper declaration for taxes and other customs fees.¹⁹⁵

Relevant Links

• WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub for Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking
• Virginia Commonwealth University Center for the Study of Tobacco Products video Addressing the Myths of Hookah

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Eastern Mediterranean Region
• Industry product terminology
• Japan Tobacco International

TCRG Research

Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) control policies: global analysis of available legislation and equity considerations,  H. Alaouie, R.S. Krishnamurthy, M. Tleis, L. El Kadi, R.A. Afifi, R. Nakkash, Tobacco Control, 2022, 31(2):187-197. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056550

References

The post Waterpipe appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Article 17 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) encourages parties to promote sustainable alternatives to tobacco farming.¹⁹⁶ There is a consensus that diversification programmes, designed for the local context, can improve farmers’ livelihoods.

Despite a global trend of decreasing tobacco consumption from 2000 to 2020,¹⁹⁷ and an overall worldwide decline in tobacco leaf production during the same time period,¹⁹⁸ tobacco remains a popular cash-crop choice for many farmers, especially in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) where the vast majority of tobacco farming takes place.¹⁹⁹²⁰⁰  The global fall in tobacco leaf production has been accompanied by a production shift from Europe and other high income countries, towards lower income countries like Malawi, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia^198201202

The tobacco industry portrays tobacco farming as economically advantageous for governments and especially for farmers. Other claims include that it helps improve resilience, empowers low-income populations and strengthens communities, while the industry also tends to minimise the risks of tobacco growing for health and the environment.^203204205

In reality, tobacco farming often leads to economic hardships, labour exploitation, environmental degradation, and health problems for farmers. Farmers often have less influence within the political process than non-tobacco growers in the same area.²⁰⁶

Image 1: Tobacco leaf drying (Source: Shutterstock)

The myth of economic prosperity

According to the tobacco industry, tobacco cultivation promises high rates of return for investing in tobacco crops and long-term benefits to smallholder farmers.^203204205

However, tobacco growing is often less profitable for farmers than other crops, and tobacco-growing families are poorer than comparable non-tobacco-growing households.²⁰¹²⁰⁷ In Lebanon, research has shown that small scale production is so unprofitable that it would not be possible without government subsidy.²⁰⁸

Evidence shows that the labour costs of growing tobacco are enormous, as much as double the labour needed to produce other similar crops. For example, tobacco is amongst the most labour-intensive crops in Kenya, requiring over 1,000 hours of unpaid labour to produce one acre of tobacco.²⁰⁹ The number of hours needed for tobacco growing stops families spending time attaining educational qualifications or developing skills that might lead to more lucrative livelihoods.

Tobacco growing also creates specific vulnerabilities for farmers:  they depend on tobacco companies for inputs and technologies, and are exposed to fluctuations in the price of tobacco leaf.²¹⁰

In its reporting, the tobacco industry minimises the low rates of return on investment for tobacco growing and downplays the financial risks for the farmers. For example, BAT reported that in Kenya, tobacco farmers can either grow food for their families’ needs or have sufficient profits to purchase food.²⁰³ A 2020 study of tobacco farming in Kenya instead shows that most tobacco farmers are stuck in unprofitable ‘contract farming’ systems and 10-15% are food insecure.²⁰⁹

Contract farming

Most tobacco farmers work under a contract system with leaf buying-companies or directly with transnational tobacco companies like BAT.²⁰⁹²¹¹

Under these systems, farmers receive inputs like plants, fertiliser and machinery at the start of the season from leaf-buying companies, without having to pay for these upfront. In return, they commit to selling their tobacco to the leaf merchant. However, leaf prices are dictated by the buying companies, who often set these very low or reduce them during the contract period. Leaf buyers often use tobacco grading, or the classification of leaf quality, to reduce the offer price, often in disagreement with farmers.^209212213 Leaf buying companies can also deduct unfairly high costs from the payment they offer farmers, to pay back the inputs they initially provided.²⁰⁹

Contract farming rarely produces the high returns promised by tobacco and leaf-buying companies. Instead, contract farmers remain stuck in ‘bonded labour’: debt cycles where they never earn enough to repay their debts.^209211213214 Contracted farmers often have to rely on the unpaid labour of family members and children in fields in order to meet contract requirements.²¹¹

Farmers often understand that this contract system for tobacco farming is risky but agree to this work because they lack the credit to pursue other economic opportunities. Contract tobacco growing guarantees them the income, however low, that they need in order to pay for basic necessities like healthcare and education.²⁰¹

The COVID-19 pandemic and profitability

The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the struggle of farmers to find fair prices for their tobacco leaf. In Malawi, farmers reported receiving less than half of the expected rate for their tobacco leaf at auction.²¹⁵ Fears that crowded auction floors and direct contact between growers and buyers would promote transmission of the virus prompted Zimbabwean authorities to delay the opening of the tobacco market selling season.²¹⁶²¹⁷ Once the markets did open, new regulations stated that individual farmers would not be allowed onto auction floors where they could observe buyers; tobacco association representatives would instead sell leaf on behalf of farmers.²¹⁷

• For more information on the tobacco industry and COVID-19, see our page on COVID-19

The climate crisis and profitability

The climate crisis in tobacco-growing regions makes profits from tobacco growing more unreliable.

In Zimbabwe, shorter and more erratic rainy seasons decrease the quality and quantity of tobacco crops, especially for smallholder farmers who can’t afford irrigation systems and rely on rainfall instead.²¹⁸

In the tobacco-growing region of Temanggung, Indonesia, the phenomenon of late tobacco harvesting seasons has become increasingly common. In this region, farmers have been losing income, as companies purchase tobacco leaf from other regions where harvesting happens earlier in the year.²¹⁹

Farmers in tobacco growing regions that are heavily impacted by the climate crisis have been developing adaptation and mitigation strategies to maintain the profitability of their tobacco crops, such as irrigation systems and later harvesting. However, research indicates that “even with these adaptations tobacco and maize are riskier crops to grow than traditional grains.”²¹⁸²²⁰ soil degradation,²²¹²²² biodiversity loss,²²³ the use of pesticides,²²⁴²²⁵ and adverse effects on farmers’ health.²²⁶ Despite this, tobacco companies use ESG rankings and accreditations to clean up their image.²²⁷

• For more information, see the page Tobacco and the Environment

Image 2: A farmer carrying a bundle of tobacco leaf (Source: Shutterstock)

Vulnerable communities

Together with the narrative of economic prosperity comes the myth that impoverished and vulnerable communities are empowered. Philip Morris International (PMI) published a report in April 2020, focusing on the empowerment of women for change in its supply chain. In this report, PMI argued that it works to “empower women to play an active role in improving the household economic condition but also in enhancing the overall wellbeing of their children and maintaining a safe work environment” on tobacco farms.²²⁸ However, a study in Zimbabwe concluded that women in households growing cash crops, in particular tobacco, were more likely to be disempowered.²²⁹ A study conducted in China, Tanzania and Kenya concluded that few women in tobacco growing households in Tanzania and Kenya had any financial decision-making power. Women also face particular harmful effects to their health while working on tobacco farms, including the risk of miscarriage while pregnant.²³⁰

All four transnational tobacco corporations present a strong and compelling narrative around tobacco farming: that it will improve livelihoods, strengthen communities, provide good working conditions and deliver financially stable futures for farmers.^231232233234 For example, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) states on its website that “Growers know they will receive meaningful support that not only leads to improved yields and profits, but that also help improve the social conditions and quality of life in their communities.”²³⁵

However, a WHO report on tobacco and the environment published in 2017 found that the long-term consequences include “increased food insecurity, frequent sustained farmers’ debt, illness and poverty among farmworkers, and widespread environmental damage”.²¹² Tobacco farmers end up having to dedicate intensive labour hours to produce tobacco leaf, in inadequate working conditions, with low wages and unfair conditions that include child labour (see below).

• For more information on the tobacco industry narratives around farming see International Tobacco Growers Association

Health risks to farmers

Tobacco leaf production has many health risks, which are frequently underreported by the tobacco industry.

According to the World Health Organization, “each day, a tobacco worker who plants, cultivates and harvests tobacco may absorb as much nicotine as found in 50 cigarettes”.²⁰⁰ Nicotine poisoning, also known as green tobacco sickness, occurs as a result of exposure to wet tobacco leaves during tobacco cultivation. Children are more likely to develop green tobacco sickness, not only because they have a relatively smaller body size, but also because they have not yet built up the nicotine tolerance which is needed protect them from these side effects.²⁰³ Avoiding nicotine poisoning when working with tobacco plants is difficult, even when wearing protective equipment. BAT reported several cases of green tobacco sickness in its Brazilian farming operations, despite workers having worn protective equipment.²⁰³

Another risk resulting from tobacco farming is the exposure to agrochemicals, including pesticides. Researchers found that in Kenya, 26% of tobacco workers showed symptoms of pesticide poisoning;²³⁶ in Malaysia, this number was higher than a third.²³⁷ In Bangladesh, where weed killer is frequently used in tobacco fields, significant levels of chemicals were also detected in local water sources, killing fish and soil organisms needed to maintain soil health.²³⁸

The risk of exposure to agrochemicals is generally lower for tobacco farmers in high-income countries than in LMICs, where the regulation of chemicals tends to be weaker.²²¹ Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) plus eleven other persistent organic pollutants used in agrochemicals are banned in high income countries, but not in some LMICs.²²¹²³⁹ Pesticides are often sold to tobacco farmers in LMICs without proper packaging or instructions.²²¹²³⁹ The health effects that derive from chronic exposure range from birth defects and tumours to blood disorders, neurological diseases and depression.²²¹²³⁹ Even tobacco workers who do not directly mix or spray chemicals, like harvesters, can be exposed to significant levels of toxins and are susceptible to pesticide poisoning.²¹²

Child Labour

Child labour is a prevalent and long standing issue in the tobacco farming sector.²⁴⁰

Children involved in the growing stages of tobacco farming take part in labour-intensive activities,²⁴¹ which poses risks to their health,²⁴²²⁴³ and limits their access to education.²⁴⁴²⁴⁵

Children working in tobacco farms are also more vulnerable to the health risks than adults, including the impacts of absorbing nicotine.²⁴⁶

Many of the children working in tobacco fields in Kenya report handling fertilisers and chemicals, endangering their health.²⁰⁹²⁴⁶

Tobacco farming and the FCTC

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco.

It recognises that as countries and governments adopt measures to reduce the demand of tobacco products, they must also address the consequences of this demand reduction on tobacco farmers who rely on these crops for their livelihoods.²⁴⁷

Specifically, article 17 recognises the need to:

“promote economically viable alternatives to tobacco production as a way to prevent possible adverse social and economic impacts on populations whose livelihoods depend on tobacco production.”¹⁹⁶

The tobacco industry argues that tobacco control policies threaten the economic benefits  that it claims tobacco growing brings to local farmers.¹⁹⁶However, other crops can provide much more sustainable alternatives. In addition, demand reduction happens slowly, allowing farmers to diversify their crops gradually, reducing the economic impact.¹⁹⁶

Parties to the WHO FCTC also have an obligation to:

“have due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories.” ²⁴⁷

• For more information see the page on Tobacco and the Environment

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental, Social and Governance

In response to increasing scrutiny over environmental degradation and the use of child labour in the tobacco supply chain, transnational tobacco companies have invested in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives which they describe to their shareholders in their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reports.²²⁷

• For more information, see the pages on CSR: Child Labour, and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing (ECLT) foundation

The tobacco industry has also been involved in CSR programmes supporting farming diversification in tobacco growing regions, despite the FCTC specifically recommending that “policies promoting economically sustainable alternative livelihoods should be protected from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.¹⁹⁶²⁴⁸

• See Greenwashing in Malawi and the Centre for Agricultural Transformation (CAT)

PMI’s ‘Agricultural Labour Practices’ (ALP) Programme

On 10 December 2020, PMI published an article seeking to celebrate the International Day of Human Rights by promoting its achievements around its Agricultural Labour Practices (ALP) program. This programme was created by PMI in 2011, seemingly aiming to end child labour and protect workers’ rights and livelihoods.²⁴⁹

According PMI’s ALP 2020 report, the key principles of the programme include “no child labor, no forced labor or human trafficking, fair treatment, safe working environment, fair income and work hours, freedom of association, and terms of employment”.²⁵⁰ However, the timeline below (Image 3) from the same report, shows how, despite the programme having run for 9 years, PMI continues to use child labour in its supply chain. The company has given itself a further 5 years to end the practice.²⁵⁰

Image 3: Timeline of the ‘Agricultural Labor Practices Program’ (Source: Philip Morris International, ALP program 2020 report)²⁵⁰

• For more information on PMI’s ALP programme, and how tobacco companies fail to properly measure or manage the effectiveness of this type of initiative, see CSR: Child Labour

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Greenwashing
• Tobacco and the Environment
• CSR: Child Labour
• Tobacco Supply Chain Database: addressing the supply side of the tobacco epidemic

Relevant Links

• TCRG blog Supplying the deadly tobacco industry
• WHO World No Tobacco Day 2023: Grow food, not tobacco includes a myth buster on Tobacco growing
• WHO report: “Tobacco and the environment”
• Tobacco Atlas

TCRG Research

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including TCRG research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to the Bath TCRG’s list of publications.

References

The post Tobacco Farming appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Background

In the summer of 1999, nearly a decade after it was first used by environmental activists, the term “greenwash” entered the Concise Oxford Dictionary, defined as: “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image”.²⁵³

The first report on “greenwashing” gave the following examples as illustration: “A leader in ozone destruction takes credit for being a leader in ozone protection. A giant oil company professes to take a ‘precautionary approach’ to global warming…Another giant multinational cuts timber from virgin rainforest, replaces it with monoculture plantations and calls the project ‘sustainable forest development’”.²⁵⁴

In the decades since, greenwashing has been employed by most polluting or controversial industries, including oil, chemicals, and nuclear energy.²⁵² The tobacco industry has historically greenwashed its reputation and products through programmes such as beach clean-ups,²⁵⁵marketing of new products as “eco-friendly”²⁵⁶ and funding environmental and disaster-relief organisations,²⁵⁷ especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs), as the examples below illustrate. As consumers have grown to care more about corporate environmental performance, and choose more sustainable products,²⁵⁸ corporations including the tobacco industry have made environmental sustainability an integral pillar of their corporate social responsibility (CSR)/corporate social investment (CSI) strategies.

• More information on CSR as a tobacco industry tactic can be found on our page CSR Strategy.

From the early 2000s, the industry started pushing its CSR and greenwashing message. For example, in the introduction to British American Tobacco (BAT)’s “Social Report” in 2002/2003, the company Chairman, Sir Martin Broughton, said “Corporate social responsibility is integral to our approach to the management of our businesses globally”.²⁵⁹²⁶⁰ Critics were quick to point out the dichotomy and hypocrisy of this statement. A report by ASH, Christian Aid and Friends of the Earth argued that “British American Tobacco, while trying hard to convince shareholders and government otherwise, flies the flag for corporate social irresponsibility”. If nothing else, the report argued, BAT’s cigarette’s “kill smokers”.²⁶¹ Since 2009, BAT has published annual “Sustainability Reports” on its website.²⁶²

In an investor presentation in March 2020, BAT executives highlighted the importance of sustainability and sustainable messaging to consumers. The presentation detailed how BAT plans to put sustainability “front and centre”, including the targets of achieving carbon neutrality and 50 million non-combustible consumers by 2030 (Image 1). Sustainability appears to be a key part of BAT’s 2020 rebranding, which saw the company tagline change to “BAT: A Better Tomorrow”, accompanied by a new logo and rainbow-themed website. “Sustainability” also appears as one of the five featured headers on the top menu bar (Image 2).

• For more information on how BAT’s rebranding fits into its broader product strategy, see our page on Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: British American Tobacco.

Since the 1950s, when the connection between smoking and negative health effects was first made, tobacco companies have made significant investments in CSR campaigns. They have also used environmental impact disclosure processes and sustainability awards from external bodies to try to create a sense of legitimacy and present their industry as socially and environmentally friendly. However, tobacco companies have maintained the same harmful framing and production practices. Tobacco companies save considerable amounts of money by not having to pay the full cost of the environmental impact of tobacco cultivation, product manufacturing or cleaning up post-consumer waste. The amount of money companies make while using harmful practices involved in their supply chain, such as child labour and deforestation, dwarfs the amount they spend on sustainability CSR projects.²⁶⁵

A 2013 collaborative study between TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) for Business, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme, and TruCost (the risk assessor arm of S&P Global) found that if major industries were held financially accountable for their currently unaccounted, environmental impacts, they would not be profitable.²⁶⁶²⁶⁷

• See our pages on Tobacco and the Environment and Tobacco Farming for more information on the harms to global and community environments of tobacco production

In addition to avoiding full financial responsibility for the environmental impact of their business, tobacco companies are able to enhance their reputations and minimise harms through existing environmental impact disclosure organisations and practices.

Environmental impact disclosure

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) are eager to position themselves as responsible corporations who care about the environmental sustainability of their products. Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT), for example, both state that reducing the environmental impact of their operations is a key part of their visions for corporate sustainability.²⁵⁵²⁶⁸ Company sustainability reports feature awards and recognitions from organisations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project and Alliance for Water Stewardship in places of prominence.^255268257269 All of the ‘big four’ TTCs (BAT, PMI, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Brands) and Altria have been rated “A”, the highest possible rating, across various indices by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a not-for-profit independent index since 2003, for climate change, water, or forests.²⁶⁵²⁷⁰ Tobacco companies have also been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), which ranks top-performing companies across industries by sustainability performance.²⁷¹

Problem of legitimation

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and other environmental rankings, featured prominently in the 2018 sustainability reports of each of the ‘big four’ tobacco companies.^268255257272 Until it was expelled in September 2017, the tobacco industry also participated in the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), a voluntary sustainability pact to encourage sustainable business practices and reporting.²⁷³ In 2016, for the last UNGC at which the tobacco industry was allowed to participate, Philip Morris International (PMI) authored a brief entitled “Communication on Progress”. The brief, as Image 3 illustrates, minimized the amount of water needed to produce tobacco by comparing it with the amounts necessary to produce tea or chocolate, per weight of finished product.²⁷⁴

As the World Health Organization (WHO) noted, “PMI’s comparison attempts to put tobacco on par with these other products, ignoring the differentiator that these other products do not kill one in two of their daily users, as tobacco does”.²⁷⁵ The CDP draws a similar conclusion in its reports on corporate environmental disclosure: “industries tend to deemphasise severity of own transgressions and disagree over what constitutes a ‘significant environmental health’ issue.”²⁷⁶

Participation in the CDP, DJSI, and UN Global Compact (UNGP) may lead to companies disclosing more environmental information, but it also supports the legitimisation of the tobacco industry, allowing companies “to be seen more as ‘partners’ in public health and environmental sustainability than their deserved reputation as sullying both”.²⁶⁷ The public and investors may see inclusion on sustainability leader boards as endorsements of companies’ environmental credentials.²⁶⁵

Mandated reporting by governments can limit the opportunity for “trading data for legitimacy”.²⁶⁷ In Brazil and Canada, for example, tobacco companies are required to disclose manufacturing practices, product ingredients, toxic constituents and toxic emissions to national health services. In Brazil, the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) has the power to impose fines on companies that are not in compliance with tobacco control regulations.²⁷⁷

Problem of voluntary standards

Because environmental impact disclosure is generally voluntary, companies can set their own standards for disclosure. Voluntary disclosure results in environmental impact data that is vague, unclear and inconsistent in its coverage and methodologies.²⁶⁷ This creates several problems.

Firstly, there is no industry-wide standardised format that disclosed data must follow. This makes it difficult for researchers and external evaluators to track progress over time or make comparisons between companies. Though PMI, BAT and JTI all release yearly sustainability reports,^255268257 Imperial Brands and the Altria Group only release short summaries on their websites and include minimal information on environmental impact in their annual reports.²⁷²²⁷⁸

Secondly, a lack of standards leads to the creation of new units of measurement that can obscure the true scale of environmental impact. By 2018, for example, tobacco companies reported environmental impact data in units known as “intensity”.²⁶⁷ “Intensity” refers to units environmental cost per net revenue (e.g. tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions per GBP£ million net revenue from smoked and vapour products).²⁷² By reporting environmental costs in this way, tobacco companies are able to obscure year-on-year rise in resource consumption as product volume rises.²⁶⁷ For example, even as the environmental harm per cigarette decreases, the total volume of cigarettes produced rises, and therefore so does the total environmental impact.

Third, companies are free to set environmental goals to whatever level they like and choose to disclose on topics that portray their practices in the best light. In 2017, after BAT-owned leaf suppliers exceeded the company’s global target of 1.5kg chemicals per hectare , BAT announced it “would no longer have a global average target”.²⁷⁹ It now discloses no data on the usage of agrochemicals in its leaf cultivation operations.²⁶⁸ This strategy also applies to external disclosure: BAT, JTI and Imperial Brands have all opted out of CDP Forestry reporting after receiving “F” ratings on disclosure and impact in 2017 (BAT,²⁸⁰ JTI²⁸¹) and 2019 (Imperial²⁸²).

Finally, companies are not required to take responsibility for all environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of their products. Tobacco companies have long placed the responsibility for the disposal of cigarette butts on the shoulders of consumers and local government.²⁸³ Through the CDP’s Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration, companies can encourage their suppliers to disclose their environmental impact data to CDP.²⁸⁴ Tobacco companies have participated in this programme since 2007.²⁶⁵ PMI, BAT, JTI and Imperial Brands all appear on the CDP Supplier Engagement Leaderboard,²⁷⁶ a fact which they all promote in their sustainability reports. However, these same companies do not always account for “Scope 3” emissions in their sustainability reporting.²⁸⁵ Scope 3 emissions include “indirect” emissions from independent suppliers in the company’s supply chain, purchased goods and services and capital goods.²⁶⁷ Tobacco companies can thus exclude water used by contracted tobacco suppliers, for example, from their total reported water usages.

Sustainability corporate social responsibility programmes

Tobacco companies implement a variety of environment/sustainability-themed corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes across the world in order to enhance their corporate image. As with disclosure and sustainability awards, tobacco companies use CSR programmes around sustainability to pre-empt regulation and influence policymakers.²⁸⁶²⁸⁷ The cases below detail where tobacco companies have implemented CSR programmes on this topic and the organisations with which they collaborate in greenwashing efforts.

Global tobacco industry-funded programmes

On both a global and regional level, individual tobacco companies often fund the same organisations. The Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco Growing (ECLT) Foundation was co-founded in 2000 by British American Tobacco (BAT) and its front group, the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA), in response to criticism over the incorporation of child labour in its leaf supply chain in Malawi and elsewhere.²⁸⁸ All big four tobacco companies have since joined.²⁸⁹ Until 2019, ECLT had a long-standing partnership contract with the International Labour Organisation (ILO). After pressure from tobacco control organisations, ILO allowed the contract to expire. Both BAT and Imperial Brands are also members of the Slave-Free Alliance (SFA), which is part of a UK-based charity, Hope for Justice.²⁶⁸²⁹⁰ In its 2018 annual report, Imperial Brands stated it was a “founding member” of SFA and that SFA, alongside the ECLT Foundation, received the majority of its charitable contributions.²⁹⁰

• For more information, visit our page on the ECLT Foundation.

Another industry-founded initiative is the Sustainable Tobacco Programme (STP). Launched in April 2016, the STP sought to provide a “single sustainability programme for the tobacco industry”.²⁹¹ It is managed by independent supply chain consultant AB Sustain, a subsidiary of AB Agri.²⁹²

Total LandCare (TLC) is another sustainability NGO popular with tobacco companies. Its mission is “to improve the livelihoods and standards of living of smallholder farm households across the region”.²⁹³ Its funders include the Altria Group, PMI, BAT, Japan Tobacco and the ECLT Foundation as well as non-tobacco companies like Coca-Cola. TLC began receiving tobacco industry funding in 2001 from PMI and Philip Morris USA (now a member of the Altria Group).²⁹³

From 2001 to 2014, BAT, PMI, Japan Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco spent a combined US$22 million on CSR projects through Total LandCare and ECLT targeting child labour and deforestation. Researchers calculated that this amount was roughly equivalent to 2% of the cost savings these companies derived from deforestation and the use of child labour.²⁶⁵ TLC has since partnered with international non-governmental organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and international development agency USAID, as well as government bodies in southern Africa.²⁹³ According to Dr Athena Ramos, public health disparities researcher at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, CSR programmes targeted at child labour “represent more of a public relations strategy than any real meaningful change in practice”.²⁹⁴

These partnerships have at times simultaneously involved the tobacco industry and governments. From 2009 to 2014, for example, Imperial Tobacco (now Imperial Brands) funded a TLC project for the Government of Mozambique.²⁹⁵ Specific examples of the programmes TLC has implemented with tobacco industry funding are detailed below.

Country-level programmes

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) also fund specific country- or community-level programmes. Below are examples of CSR programmes implemented by TTCs from countries across the globe, alongside information on in-country tobacco industry activity.

Bangladesh

In 1980, British American Tobacco Bangladesh’s (BATB) launched the afforestation project Bonayan, in collaboration with the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of Bangladesh. BATB reported that it had distributed 5 million saplings in 2019.²⁹⁶²⁹⁷ BATB also runs a project, launched in 2009, entitled Probaho, to provide safe drinking water.²⁹⁷ In 2021, BATB expanded the project to the remote areas of Bandarban, launching in the Langi Para area. The Minister for Hill Tracts Bir Bahadur Ushaising MP inaugurated the local 5,000-liter capacity clean water plant, alongside a representative from BATB.²⁹⁸

The company has received awards for this work, including from the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.²⁹⁹³⁰⁰ In 2021, for example,  it received award in the Asia Corporate Excellence and Sustainability Awards,³⁰¹ and in 2022 another from the Social Enterprise Research Academy.³⁰² BATB has stated that they plan to continue working with the government.³⁰³

Bangladesh is the 12^th largest tobacco producer in the world,³⁰⁴ due, in part, to BAT’s investments in the 1970s.³⁰⁵ Over 45,000 hectares of land are used for tobacco cultivation in the country.³⁰⁶ Tobacco farmers are being encouraged to continue to expand cultivation, thanks to incentives like loans and buy back guarantees from tobacco companies.³⁰⁴

Tobacco curing uses firewood sourced from local community forests. This leads to widespread deforestation throughout the world. In Bangladesh, an estimated 170,000 individual trees are logged for this purpose each season, in the districts of Bandarban and Cox’s Bazar alone.³⁰⁶ In the district of Kushtia, deforestation has meant that local forests can no longer supply the firewood needed for curing plants. Farmers have to rely on imported straw and jute instead.³⁰⁷ Tobacco cultivation also leads to water contamination due to the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, as well as soil contamination and depletion of nutrients. A 2020 study by Hussain et al found that, in Bangladesh, levels of water and soil contamination were higher for bodies of water next to tobacco cultivating land.³⁰⁴

Brazil

Souza Cruz, British American Tobacco (BAT)’s Brazilian subsidiary, has partnered with the National Service of Rural Learning (SENAR) since 1999 to implement the “Growing Up Right” programme intended to minimise the risk of child labour.²⁶⁸ Since 2011, BAT has also been involved with the Brazilian Tobacco Growers Association, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and the Ministry of the Environment for the preservation of forest on the south coast of the country.²⁶⁹

In Brazil, where criticism of the soybean industry for its contribution to deforestation has led to global outcry, tobacco farming ranks alongside soybeans and wheat as one of the leading causes of vegetation loss.³⁰⁸ In the south of the country, British American Tobacco’s biggest operational area in the world, tobacco shares responsibility for the reduction of native forest cover to less than 2% of its original extent.³⁰⁹ During the same period of escalation of industry forestation CSR programmes, the scale of destruction of forests actually increased in LMICs during the same period as escalating CSR promotion, providing an “entrée for the tobacco industry into civil society and CSR, thus avoiding direct responsibility for the environmental consequences of the industry” according to Professor Kelley Lee, widely cited Canadian global health scholar.³⁰⁸

Canada

Unsmoke Canada Cleanups is an initiative which raises awareness of cigarette butt waste and organises litter clean-ups. Launched in September 2020, this grant-giving programme operates through a partnership between the national nonprofit The Great Outdoors Fund³¹⁰ and Unsmoke Canada, an initiative of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., a Philip Morris International subsidiary.³¹¹³¹² KAB has attracted criticism for being a corporate greenwashing front group.³¹³

China

In 2020, the China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), donated CNY 40 million (US$ 6.3 million) to support the development of a water supply system in the Yonghe County Shanxi Province of China, with a capacity of 5,000 cubic meters of clean water per day.³¹⁴.

China produces 40% of the world’s tobacco as well as holding nearly one-third of the world’s smokers. As the single largest tobacco producer in the world, the China National Tobacco Corporation produces as many as 2.5 trillion cigarettes per year.³¹⁵ Tobacco growing and the manufacturing of cigarettes are extremely water-intensive activities.A 2018 study estimated that the water footprint of a single cigarette is around 3.7 litres.³¹⁶ CNTC could be using as much as 9.25 trillion litres of water for cigarette production.

India

Imperial Brands funds education, sanitation and health through its leaf partnership with Alliance One in the Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh, including environmental education through PROTECT, a local NGO, and an after-school programme, which Imperial said was intended to “minimize the risk of child labour”.³¹⁷

Individual interventions on a community level do not address the structural, ecological and financial harms that tobacco cultivation causes to local communities. In India, where tobacco cultivation causes the loss of 45 kg of topsoil per acre cultivated per year, a government report called mono-cropped tobacco “the most erosive crop”, beating out cotton (7.5 kg), grapes (11 kg) and groundnut (12.5) (Reddy & Gupta, 2001).³¹⁸ Child labour in the tobacco industry has also been documented in Andhra Pradesh as well as across the country.³¹⁹ According to Dr Ramos, tobacco industry CSR programmes that propose to address child labour “represent more of a public relations strategy than any real meaningful change in practice” and disincentivise external monitoring efforts, especially in LMICs.²⁹⁴

Indonesia

Sampoerna, PMI’s Indonesian subsidiary, operates a wide number of environmentally-focussed CSR programmes under its “Sampoerna untuk Indonesia” scheme. These include a two-year (2018-2020) production sludge waste to fertiliser research project with Insitut Peranian Bogor (IPB) and Indonesian Agricultural Department in East Java (BPTP). A second major programme is the “Hope Project”, which re-purposes factory materials like pallets for its “adult consumer events” and forms a key part of Sampoerna’s marketing strategy. The company stated that: “In 2018, this project successfully recycled 52 tons worth of materials while simultaneously reducing 20% in marketing costs”.³²⁰ Sampoerna has won national and international awards for these programmes, such as the Green Company Performance Rating Program from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2022,³²¹, a Global CSR Award and a Global Good Governance Award in 2021.³²²

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that in the course of a 2014-2015 study on child labour in Indonesian tobacco fields, nearly half of all children interviewed reported symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning. HRW concluded that “companies’ human rights due diligence practices were not sufficient to eliminate hazardous child labor in the supply chain” and therefore tobacco companies “risk contributing to the use of, and benefitting from, hazardous child labor”.³²³ Both BAT and PMI have major operations in this area: PT Bentoel Internasional Investama (Bentoel) and PT Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk (Sampoerna), respectively.³²⁴

Malawi

From 2001 to at least 2013, Total LandCare (TLC) received millions of dollars of funding from the tobacco industry and ECLT Foundation for forestry,³²⁵³²⁶ crop diversification³²⁷³²⁸ and child labour³²⁹³³⁰ projects in Malawi.

Malawi and Mozambique are “strategic leaf sourcing locations” for Imperial Brands in Africa. In Malawi, Imperial has been piloted many sustainability initiatives across areas including water conservation,^290331332 afforestation,³³³ combatting soil erosion,³³⁴ and crop diversification.³³⁵

In 2018, PMI signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Palladium, the in-country implementer of USAID’s Feed the Future Malawi Agricultural Diversification project,³³⁶ to implement “select initiatives” in Malawi.²⁵⁵ It is unclear whether this partnership includes funding. Palladium is also funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, a foundation funded solely by PMI. Read more on our page on the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees.

Tobacco industry harms to the environment and to smallholder farmer communities are well-documented in Malawi. Estimates have placed responsibility for 70% of national deforestation in Malawi on the shoulders of the tobacco industry, making it the main cause of deforestation in the country.³³⁷ In 2015, Malawi devoted 5% of its agricultural land to farming tobacco, the highest proportion in the world, but also had the fourth fastest deforestation rate in the world.³³⁸ BAT is also being sued by the British legal firm, Leigh Day, for deriving “unjust enrichment” from underpayment and forced/child labour in tobacco farming operations in Malawi. Although BAT and Imperial Brands are named on the lawsuit filed on behalf of tenant farmers in Malawi, this case could protect children and serve as legal precedent to force tobacco supply chain reform, according to Margaret Wurth, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.³³⁹³⁴⁰

Mexico

Philip Morris International (PMI) runs an initiative in Mexico which involves collecting lighters and other litter to prevent fires. It also helps to promote “smoke-free” messaging and its heated tobacco product, IQOS. Participants collect used lighters and take them to PMI stores and other “strategic points.”³⁴¹

Mozambique

From 2009 to 2014, TLC was one of a several organisations implementing the government initiative “Promoting Rural Investment in Smallholder Enterprises” (PRISE) in Mozambique. This project was majority funded by Imperial Tobacco (now Imperial Brands).²⁹⁵

Food insecurity has been tied to tobacco cultivation in Mozambique. In 2019, the Global Hunger Index rated the situation in Mozambique as “serious”: 27.9% of the population was undernourished. Tobacco farming takes arable land away from food crops, depletes soil nutrients and contaminates local water supplies, further harming staple crop production. This in turn further diminishes food security and contributes to malnutrition in communities.³⁴²³⁴³

New Zealand

British American Tobacco New Zealand (BATNZ) provides funding to Keep New Zealand Beautiful for its anti-littering education programmes.²⁶⁸

More than six million cigarette butts are discarded in the environment in New Zealand each year. Researchers have called initiatives that encourage individual-level interventions to address tobacco product waste largely ineffective: “Fundamentally, these ’corporate social responsibility’ initiatives position butt disposal as a smokers’ problem, reinforce negative stereotypes of smokers, and relocating responsibility away from tobacco companies”.³⁴⁴

Portugal

PMI has funded ABAE’s “#Breakthehabit” anti-littering education campaign since 2018 in Portugal.²⁵⁵ PMI is not, however, listed as a partner on the organisation’s website.³⁴⁵ Beach clean-up initiatives sponsored by tobacco industry in the United States, for example, have attracted criticism for contributing to greenwashing.³¹³

Cigarette filters are commonly the most collected item on beach clean-ups. Worldwide, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are deposited each year.³⁴⁶ The industry has consistently and disingenuously marketed cigarette filters as “biodegradable”, with the explicit aim of pre-empting environmental legislation.³⁴⁷

Pakistan

In 2021, BAT subsidiary Pakistan Tobacco Company (PTC) donated 500,000 seed balls to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Department for the governmental afforestation project “Ten Billion Trees”.³⁴⁸ In 2022, PTC ran a project comprising free distribution of saplings of indigenous species.³⁴⁹ The company received awards for these initiatives, including for Clean Energy Transition, Responsible Investment, Community Impact and Environment –Carbon footprint reduction.³⁵⁰

To produce cigarettes, raw tobacco is cured using wood for fuel. Farmers either obtain this wood from the market, or by cutting down local and indigenous trees. One study observed 4,500 tobacco-curing kilns in just one tobacco-growing village, servicing around 11,000 acres of land under tobacco cultivation. Combined, these kilns burn about 6,300 tons of fuel wood each curing cycle.³⁵¹ In 2020, around 125,500 acres (50,800 hectares) of land in Pakistan was devoted to tobacco growing.³⁵²

For World Cleanup Day 2022, Philip Morris (Pakistan) Limited (PMPKL) launched a litter clean-up project titled #MissionCleanerPakistan, including a litter pick on Clifton Beach, Sea View, Karachi, volunteers collected over 3300 kilograms (3.3 tonnes) of trash for this project.³⁵³ PMPKL has won awards for its CSR activities in Pakistan, including in “Employee Volunteerism” and “Waste Management/Recycling”³⁵⁴ and “Green Energy Initiatives”.³⁵³³⁵⁵

After the Sri Lankan government publicly announced its intention to ban tobacco cultivation by 2020, Ceylon Tobacco Company (CTC) engaged in spreading misleading information about the contribution of tobacco cultivation to sustainable development, attempted to interfere in the policymaking process, organised a Buddhist ritual against the ban and promoted its SADP programme through media tours.³⁵⁶

Tanzania

The JT Group (JTI parent company) partnered with TLC from 2007 to 2014 to fund the Community Reforestation and Support Program in Tanzania and Malawi.³⁵⁷

Loss of biodiversity due to tobacco cultivation deforestation-driven habitat fragmentation is well-documented in Tanzania. Excessive wood use during tobacco curing and uncontrolled land clearing are important factors leading to deforestation and desertification. The tobacco industry has a history of funding and promoting afforestation programmes in order to distract and refute research that shows the negative effects of tobacco cultivation on forest cover, biodiversity, soil erosion and ground water retention.³⁵⁸

United Kingdom

In January 2021, Philip Morris Limited entered a multi-year agreement with the non-for-profit, Clean Up Britain (CLUB) to “tackle cigarette butt litter”. Within this voluntary agreement, CLUB acts as independent administrator for a PMI-funded project. ³⁵⁹ PMI reportedly paid a “seven-figure sum” to fund the project, which consists in applying “emotional” pressure on smokers caught littering cigarette ends.³⁶⁰ The campaign was launched in January 2022 in Bristol, under the title “Get Your Butt Off Our Streets”, to be later rolled out across Britain.³⁶¹ An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded every years in the environment, making them the most littered item on Earth.³⁴⁶ Post-consumer waste, largely in the form of discarded cigarette butts, and its disposal, is however only the last step of life-cycle of a cigarette. Each step of the tobacco supply chain, from agriculture to distribution, contributes substantially to climate change and environmental degradation.

United States 

Altria, Reynolds American International (BAT) and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (BAT) all provide funding for the Cigarette Litter Prevention Programme run by Keep America Beautiful (KAB).³⁶². The Cumberland Plateau Stewardship Fund, of which Altria is a member along with US government departments, has provided a total of US$3.1 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to fund conservation programmes in the US Cumberland Plateau, which spans parts of eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia, from 2017-2019.^363364365 RAI and Altria are also both members of the Supply Chain Resource Cooperative hosted at North Carolina State University (NC State).²⁶⁸²⁷⁸ The Cumberland Plateau is located in key tobacco growing states. A 2013 investigation by Human Rights Watch revealed that, of 133 children interviewed in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, where over 90% of tobacco grown in the US is cultivated, 66% reported symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning. At least eight major cigarette manufacturers, including BAT, PMI, Altria, Imperial Brands, JTI and China National Tobacco Company all sourced tobacco leaf from the US at the time.³⁶⁶

Philippines

In 2019, PMFTC, the Philippine affiliate of PMI, donated 30 waste bins to the Armed forces at camp Servillano Aquino, Tarclac City.Tobacco accounts for 2 million tons of solid waste worldwide, every year.³⁴⁶

Tobacco industry charitable donations

Charitable donations are a key part of tobacco industry CSR strategy Though companies are not always obliged to disclose the amounts and destinations of their charitable donations, both Philip Morris International and the Altria Group publish information on their funding of third-party organisations online.³⁶⁷³⁶⁸

The tobacco industry also commonly donates to disaster relief efforts where they operate, including: Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti,³⁶⁷ Indonesia,^257369367 Italy, Japan, Malaysia,³⁶⁷ Mexico,²⁵⁷³⁶⁷ Mozambique,³⁷⁰ the Philippines,²⁵⁷³⁶⁷ Romania, Senegal and Serbia.³⁶⁷

These lists are not comprehensive. Evidence of funding for sustainability programmes in Australia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Japan, South Africa, South Korea and Ukraine is also given in PMI’s charitable donations disclosure for 2014-2018.³⁶⁷

In the United States, the Altria Group has funded various environmental sustainability organisations. Donations disclosed in 2018 and 2019 appear in the table below.

Co-option of “sustainability”

In sustainability reports, tobacco companies use “sustainability” as a rhetorical strategy to align themselves with both environmental sustainability and sustainable development. All major TTCs are at least rhetorically supportive of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); examples from 2018 and 2019 tobacco company sustainability reports can be seen in Image 4.

For example, in the company’s 2016 sustainability report, BAT CEO (at the time) Nicandro Durante said there was a “clear alignment between the SDGs and our own sustainability priorities”.²⁷⁹ However, since 2017, WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which prevents the tobacco industry from having influence on health policy, has been explicitly included in SDG 3 (Human Health) through Target 3A: “Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate”.³⁷³ Notably, none of these reports mention the incorporation of the WHO FCTC into the SDGs as part of Target 3.

In Highjacking the SDGs? The Private Sector and the Sustainable Development Goals, German tobacco control expert Laura Graen argued that references to the SDGs form “part of a broader, multi-layered strategy with the aim of stopping tobacco control measures such as taxation, advertising bans or plain packaging”.²⁷³ An internal Philip Morris International (PMI) document, leaked to Reuters in 2017, revealed that the potential inclusion of additional tobacco control measures in the SDGs were seen by PMI as an “alarming development” because the company feared “that it could lead to the creation of another international body at the UN that would deal specifically with tobacco issues”.³⁷⁴

Tobacco companies take advantage of conflicting goals (e.g. economy and health) within SDGs. In particular, tobacco companies point to SDG 17 (on Public-Private Engagement) to justify and advocate for tobacco industry involvement in government, which is prohibited by Article 5.3 of the FCTC.^268255272257 The industry has formed relationships with other government departments after being excluded from health through “sustainable development” partnerships and programmes: BAT Bangladesh has partnered with the Bangladeshi Department for Agricultural Extension to implement sustainability CSR projects.³⁷⁵ The industry uses SDGs to further circumvent regulation and perpetuate its harmful business practices, undermining sustainable development rather than helping it.²⁷³

• For more detail on how the tobacco industry aligns itself with sustainable development in smallholder farmer communities, read our page on Tobacco Farming.

Impact on regulation

On one hand, encouraging companies to disclose more information on the environmental impact of their products (through their life cycle and supply chains) can be seen as increasing transparency and supporting improvement of inefficient and harmful practices. On the other hand, increasing disclosure can also be seen as a form of CSR self-promotion. Academic research on governance suggests that these “proactive moves by the industry to stave off regulation that would require them to adhere to externally wrought environmental standards and practices”.³⁷⁶

Voluntary disclosure and other “ethical and green business” practices have been criticised as CSR and public relations campaigns designed to rehabilitate corporate image and increase product sales without addressing the fundamental changes necessary to core business practices.^265377378 An additional challenge is that regulations differ by location. Tobacco companies have also historically taken advantage of differing regulation to avoid bearing the weight of corporate responsibility for their products. This includes avoiding and evading tax as well as environmental regulations.³⁷⁹³⁸⁰

For example, in March 2016, BAT announced it would close a cigarette manufacturing plant in Malaysia due to the government’s implementation of an increased excise tax and consideration of plain packaging.³⁸¹ However, it had really made plans to open up another manufacturing plant in southern Vietnam, well before the excise taxes or discussions on plain packaging commenced.³⁸²

The tactic of moving production facilities has been used by tobacco companies around the world, often when governments have sought to introduce tobacco control regulations. For example, when faced with the prospect of increased taxes and government’ support for tobacco control, Philip Morris International has closed, or threatened to close, manufacturing plants in Argentina.³⁸³³⁸⁴ and Colombia.³⁸⁵ BAT used the same tactic in Chile in 2015.³⁸⁶

Industry-funded sustainability programmes pre-empt criticism and make it difficult to advocate for external regulation. When commenting on the efficacy and intent of tobacco industry reforestation schemes, prominent tobacco control researchers Dr Marty Otañez and Dr Stanton Glantz said that industry-funded programmes facilitate an environment where government officials LMICs who lack revenues to fund their own initiatives are hesitant to criticise tobacco industry schemes or refuse funding. Additionally, “association with social and environmental responsibility may weaken opposition from public health and civil society groups to industry interference in tobacco control policy by making it politically more difficult to criticize tobacco companies”.²⁶⁵

The tobacco industry has also moved to distance itself from tobacco cultivation through establishing “leaf partnerships” with third-party companies. Instead of direct contracts with farmers, this has had the effect of transferring responsibility for monitoring and addressing problems from tobacco companies to leaf companies, while continuing to reap the benefits of cheap leaf products and escaping culpability for harmful practices. Especially in LMICs, where there may be less infrastructure to support monitoring and corporate financial contributions may have a greater impact, tobacco companies can use these kinds of initiatives to increase political support and weaken opposition.²⁹⁴

The WHO’s 2017 report on the environmental harms of tobacco says that this practice of evading tax and regulation “epitomizes how, in many instances, when citizens petition for better environmental practices or more socially responsible business conduct, transnational tobacco companies simply uproot their operations and ignore the long-term environmental damage that they have caused, and take them to a new location where they can repeat the environmental damage”.³³⁷ When companies relocate away from taxation and regulation, they impoverish already cash-strapped central governments. The current and historical tax evasion and anti-tax lobbying of tobacco companies makes it all the more difficult for LMICs with developing economies to devise and implement effective environmental regulatory regimes.

It its 2017 report, WHO recommended that steps to limit greenwashing include legislating at international and local levels to require companies meet specific disclosure requirements for material emissions, water usage, waste disposal, chemical use, child labour and other targets. It is particularly important that these regulations apply equally across countries; tobacco companies have a history of moving their operations to avoid scrutiny and environmental regulations.³³⁷ The evaluation of disclosed data should be performed by independent evaluators, such as government, who do not require or accept payment from companies for this service.²⁶⁷ The WHO also recommends that countries ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) that include bans on advertising CSR programmes, in accordance with the FCTC.

Researchers and international non-governmental organisations, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union (EU), have suggested that implementing and strengthening existing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes to make producers responsible for the physical and financial costs of disposing of waste of post-consumer products.³⁸⁷³⁸⁸ EPR will be implemented in the EU, with increasing targets for recycling, prevention and use from 2025 to 2035.³⁸⁹ The “Single Use Plastics Directive” will include cellulose acetate products, including cigarette filters, which do not biodegrade.²⁸³

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Tobacco and the Environment
• Tobacco Farming
• ECLT Foundation
• CSR Strategy
• United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)

Relevant Links

• BAT sustainability webpage
• PMI sustainability webpage
• JTI sustainability webpage
• Altria Group sustainability webpage
• Imperial Brands sustainability webpage

TCRG Research

• J. Hoek, P. Gendall, M. Blank, L. Robertson & L. Marsh, Butting out: an analysis of support for measures to address tobacco product waste, Tobacco Control, 2020;29:131-137, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-054956
• B.K. Matthes & M. Zatoński, Addressing the tobacco epidemic as a sustainable development priority: the need for cross-disciplinary thinking, University of Bath Centre for Development Studies Blog, 31 May 2019
• B.K. Matthes & M. Zatoński, Tobacco control and sustainable development: shared challenges and future opportunities, J Health Inequal, 2019;5(1):71-79, doi:10.5114/jhi.2019.87840
• S. Ulucanlar, G.J. Fooks, A.B. Gilmore, The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity, PLOS Medicine, 20 September 2016, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125
• A.B. Gilmore, G. Fooks, J. Drope, S.A. Bialous & R.R. Jackson, Exposing and Addressing Tobacco Industry Conduct in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries, The Lancet, 2015;385(9972):1029 – 1043, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60312-9
• G. Fooks & A. Gilmore, Corporate Philanthropy, Political Influence, and Health Policy, PLoS ONE, 2013, 8(11):5, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080864
• G. Fooks, A. Gilmore, J. Collin, C. Holden & K. Lee, The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR, J Bus Ethics, 2013;112(2):283-299, doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1250-5

References