Philip Morris International (PMI) is the largest tobacco company in the world (excluding the Chinese National Tobacco Corporation).¹ The company is headquartered in New York in the United States (US), but also based operationally in Lausanne, Switzerland and Hong Kong. According to the Associated Press, Altria decided to separate Philip Morris USA and its international operations in order to “clear the international tobacco business from the legal and regulatory constraints facing its domestic counterpart, Philip Morris USA”.²

In 2018, PMI and its subsidiaries sold its products in over 180 markets, selling cigarettes, other tobacco products and newer nicotine and tobacco products. The company reported in 2019 that it held 28.4% of the global market for cigarette and heated tobacco products (HTPS) excluding the US and China.³ The company owned six of the top 15 international cigarette brands in 2018. Its global cigarette brands are Marlboro (the world’s bestselling international brand), Merit, Parliament, Virginian S, L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next and Red & White. The company reported owning a market share of at least 15% or over in 100 countries in 2018, although in the UK PMI held only fourth position for cigarette market share behind Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and British American Tobacco (BAT).⁴

According to Euromonitor International, PMI’s global share of the cigarette market (by retail volume) was under 14% in 2018, and fell to 12% in 2020 (figures rounded). ⁵

On 27 August 2019, global news outlets reported that PMI and Altria were considering a merger to reunite the brands that had split in 2007.⁶⁷⁸ However the merger was called off the next month, in response to news that the FDA was considering a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes.⁹¹⁰ On March 21, 2018, PMI acquired Tabacalera Costarricense, S.A. and Mediola y Compañía, S.A. for USD$95 million, which sell Derby, Marlboro and L&M cigarettes in Costa Rica.³

Employees or Board Members: Past and Present

Jacek Olczak was appointed the Chief Executive Officer of PMI in May 2021.¹¹ Previously he was the company’s Chief Operating Officer. He succeeded André Calantzopoulos who was appointed Executive Chairman of the Board. The previous chairman Louis C. Camilleri, stepped down in Decemer 2020. A full list of the company’s leadership team can be accessed at PMI’s website. Other persons that currently work for, or have previously been employed with, the company:

Massimo Andolina | Chris Argent | Drago Azinovic | Emmanuel Babeau | Werner Barth | Charles Bendotti | Frank de Rooij | Frederic de Wilde | Suzanne Rich Folsom | Stacey Kennedy | Martin King | Michael Kunst | Andreas Kurali | Bin Li | Marco Mariotti | Mario Massroli | Deepak Mishra | Silke Muenster | John O’Mullane | Paul Riley | Marian Salzman | Gregoire Verdeaux | Michael Voegele | Stefano Volpetti | Jerry Whitson |  Martin J. Barrington | David Bernick | Bertrand Bonvin | Harold Brown | Patrick Brunel | Mathis Cabiallavetta | Louis C. Camilleri | Andrew Cave | Herman Cheung | Kevin Click | Marc S. Firestone | John Dudley Fishburn | Jon Huenemann | Even Hurwitz | Jennifer Li | Graham Mackay | Sergio Marchionne | Kate Marley | Kalpana Morparia | Jim Mortensen | Lucio A. Noto | Matteo Pellegrini | Robert B. Polet | Ashok Rammohan | Carlos Slim Helú | Julie Soderlund | Hermann Waldemer | Stephen M. Wolf | Miroslaw Zielinski

Affiliations

Memberships

In 2019, PMI declared membership of the following organisations on the European Transparency Register:¹²

The American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union | American European Community Association (AECA) | American Chamber of Commerce of Lithuania | Ass. Industrial Portuguesa (AIP) | Business Europe | Centromarca | CEOE | Czech Association Branded Goods | Czech Foodstuff Chamber | Economiesuisse | Estonian Chamber of Commerce | European Communities Trademark Association (ECTA) | European Policy Centre (EPC) | Kangaroo Group | Latvian Chamber of Commerce | Latvian Traders Association | Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists | MARQUES | Spanish Tobacco Roundtable | VBO-FBE

PMI had previously listed memberships of: International Trademark Association (INTA) | The Trans-Atlantic Business Council (TABC) | | European Risk Forum | European Smokeless Tobacco Council (ESTOC) | British Chamber of Commerce | Public Affairs Council | APRAM | LES France | AmCham Germany | Bund fur Lebensmittelrecht & Lebensmittelkunde | Europaischer Wirtschaftssenat (EWS) | Wirtschaftsbeirat der Union e.V. | American Chamber of Commerce of Estonia | American Lithuanian Business Council | Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists | Investors’ Forum | AmCham Spain | Unindustria (Confindustria) | Consumer Packaging Alliance | British Brands Group | Foodstuff Chamber The company is also a donor to the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco Growing Foundation (ECLT), alongside BAT, Imperial Brands, JTI and Swedish Match, among others.¹³

In May 2015, ECLT and the International Labour Organization (ILO) entered into an agreement to develop global guidance on occupational health and safety with regards to child labour in the tobacco industry.¹⁴ PMI was a member of the Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers (CECCM), but left in 2006 following a dispute with other members.¹⁵

Consultancies

PMI has worked with numerous Public Relations (PR) and law consultancies:

• In 2020 and 2021 PMI released white papers and held events on public trust in science in partnership with the Industry Transformation Coalition.
• In January 2020, PMI released a white paper entitled “Unsmoke Your Mind: Pragmatic Answers to Tough Questions for a Smoke-Free Future”. The company enlisted the consulting firm Povaddo, which works across public affairs, strategy and research,¹⁶ to conduct an opinion-based survey of smokers across 14 countries.¹⁷ The report was heavily criticised in The Lancet medical journal (see below)¹⁸ who pointed out that its findings were based on a “self-funded online survey”.¹⁸ In July 2020, PMI published another white paper called “In Support of the Primacy of Science”, which was also based on online surveys conducted by Povaddo, on the public’s views on science.¹⁹²⁰ In March 2021 PMI released the results of a third online survey, conducted by Povaddo in 20 countries, on public attitudes to newer nicotine and tobacco products and collaboration between governments and tobacco companies.²¹ Povaddo has conducted previous research for PMI.²²
• In December 2019, researchers and academic institutions received invitations from the consulting firm, Handshake, to commission research on behalf of PMI on how companies navigate corporate transformation.²³
• In 2016, Philip Morris UK was a client of London-based PR and communications company Instinctif Partners.
• That same year, media also linked Brussels-based PR company Pantarhei Advisors to Philip Morris.
• In 2014, UK-based Media Intelligence Partners was PMI’s media contact during Sir Cyril Chantler’s plain packaging review.
• In 2014, German PR company Communications & Network Consulting AG (CNC) listed Philip Morris as a client on the EU Transparency Register.
• In that same year, Luxembourg-based Felula SA, a one-person consultancy run by Serge Estgen, listed PMI as its client on the EU Transparency Register.
• In 2013, Edinburgh-based Halogen Communications supported PMI’s opposition to Scotland’s plans to introduce Plain Packaging.
• In 2012 and 2013, PMI worked with London-based PR and media company Pepper Public Affairs on PMI’s Anti-Plain Packaging Media Campaign.
• In 2012, the UK branch of Crosby Textor Group, helped PMI oppose Plain packaging in the UK.
• Law firm Clifford Chance has a history of lobbying for PMI in the UK and European Union (EU). In 2009, the firm submitted anonymous Freedom of Information requests to a UK university on behalf of the tobacco company, and in 2011 and 2012 Clifford Chance’s Michel Petite lobbied on the EU Tobacco Products Directive.
• From 2009 to 2011 PR company Gardant Communications worked for Philip Morris UK. In 2009, the PR company supported Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban and was involved in Philip Morris’ Regulatory Litigation Action Plan Against the Display Ban.
• APCO Associates‘ collaboration with PMI goes back to the 1990s when it helped the company set up the European Science and Environment Forum. More recently, it was involved in Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban.
• London-based PR company INHouse Communications also played a part in Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban.
• Ogilvy Group‘s collaboration with Philip Morris goes back to the 1950s when it ran one of its advertising campaigns.
• José María Aznar, the former Spanish Prime Minister (see below)

Controversial Marketing Strategies

Since its controversial “Be Marlboro: Targeting the World’s Biggest Brand at Youth” campaign in 2014, PMI have been accused on multiple occasions of targeting their products at young people. On its website, PMI says that it is “committed to doing our part to help prevent children from smoking or using nicotine products”. ²⁴ It further states that its “marketing complies with all applicable laws and regulations, and we have robust internal policies and procedures in place so that all our marketing and advertising activities are directed only toward adult smokers”.²⁴ Despite these assurances, PMI has been accused of, and fined for, running marketing campaigns that target young people. For more information see Be Marlboro: Targeting the World’s Biggest Brand at Youth. PMI has increasingly used social media to market its newer products, including e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS) and heated tobacco products.

• For more information on PMI’s newer, including IQOS, visit Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International and Heated Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International.

In December 2023 The Times newspaper highlighted PMI’s role in third party campaigns promoting e-cigarettes in the UK.²⁵ For more information visit the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World page.

Complicity in Tobacco Smuggling

PMI portrays itself publicly as a victim of illicit tobacco trade, with the company reporting that tobacco smuggling results in “considerable financial losses” and “damage” to manufacturers’ brands.²⁶ To help tackle illicit trade, PMI launched a funding initiative called PMI IMPACT in 2016, worth US$100m and aimed at bringing together “organisations that fight illegal trade and related crimes, enabling them to implement solutions”.²⁷²⁸ In its first call for proposals in 2016, PMI asked for “projects that have an impact on illegal trade and related crimes in the European Union…”²⁹ The second call, made in 2017, expanded the areas of focus to include the Middle East, North Africa, South and Central America and South and Southeast Asia.³⁰ For more information, visit our page on PMI IMPACT. In contrast to the company’s public persona of being part of the smuggling solution, evidence shows that the company was, in fact, part of the problem. In 2000, the European Commission (backed by a majority of EU member states) started court proceedings in the US Courts against PMI and other tobacco companies for its complicity in tobacco smuggling. The Commission claimed that the tobacco companies “boosted their profits in the past by deliberately oversupplying some countries so that their product could be smuggled into the EU”, costing the EU millions of euros in lost tax and customs revenue.³¹³² PMI and the Commission settled their dispute in 2004, when the company agreed to pay the Commission £675m to fund anti-smuggling activities.³³ The two Parties signed an Anti-Counterfeit and Anti-Contraband Cooperation Agreement,³⁴ referred to by the company as Project Star. As part of this agreement, PMI commissioned KPMG to measure annually the size of the legal, contraband and counterfeit markets for tobacco products in each EU Member States. Project Star’s methodology and data have been strongly criticised for lack of transparency, overestimating illicit cigarette levels in some European countries, and serving PMI’s interests over those of the EU and its member states.³⁵

Tactics to Subvert Tobacco Control Campaigns and Policies

PMI has strongly opposed tobacco control legislation and regulations across the world, including plain packaging in Australia and the UK, the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), and tobacco control decrees in Uruguay. The company has used a variety of strategies and tactics to influence tobacco control policies and subvert existing regulations.

Funding Pro-Tobacco Research and Discrediting Independent Evidence

In response to plain packaging proposals in the UK, PMI funded research, expert opinion and public relations activities which supported its position. One of the people that PMI funded for this purpose was Will O’Reilly, a former Detective Chief Inspector with the London Metropolitan Police. O’Reilly was appointed as a PMI consultant in 2011,³⁶ conducting undercover test purchases of illicit tobacco and publicising his findings in UK regional press.³⁷ One of PMI’s arguments to oppose plain packaging was that the public health measure would lead to an increase in illicit tobacco, including counterfeited plain packs. For background on, and a critique of, this argument, go to Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: It will Lead to Increased Smuggling. O’Reilly’s test purchases appear to have enabled PMI to secure significant press coverage of its data on illicit tobacco.³⁸ In March 2019, Euromonitor International, a market research organisation, received funding through two PMI initiatives: the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and PMI IMPACT.³⁹⁴⁰⁴¹ Examples of other organisations and individuals that have received funding from PMI to produce research or expert opinions or critiques of independent evidence, in order to oppose tobacco control legislation are: Deloitte | KPMG | Transcrime | Roy Morgan Research | Ashok Kaul | Michael Wolf | Populus | Centre for Economics and Business Research⁴²⁴³ | Compass Lexecon⁴⁴ | Rupert Darwall⁴⁵ | James Heckman⁴⁶ | Lord Hoffman⁴⁷ | Alfred Kuss⁴⁸ | Lalive ⁴⁹ | LECG⁵⁰⁵¹⁵² | London Economics | Povaddo²²| SKIM Consumer Research⁵³

• To see a list of all organisations funded through PMI’s Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), visit our pages on the FSFW’s Centres of Excellence and grantees.
• For more information on the tobacco industry’s use of research to undermine legitimate independent evidence see: Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Research, Expert Opinion and Public Relations.

Using Freedom of Information Requests to Acquire Public Health Research Data

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are one strategy that the tobacco industry uses to undermine tobacco control legislation, often covertly using third parties.⁵⁴ In 2009, and again in 2011, PMI sent Freedom of Information requests to Stirling University (UK) requesting access to a wide range of data from its research on teenage smoking. PMI alleged that it wanted “to understand more about the research project conducted by the University of Stirling on plain packaging for cigarettes”.⁵⁵ The FOI requests were eventually dropped. For more information on these FOI requests, and an explanation on how these requests impacted the University of Stirling, go to our page FOI: Stirling University.

Fabricating Support through Front Groups

PMI has used front groups to oppose tobacco control measures. Front Groups are organisations that purport to serve a public interest, while actually serving the interests of another party (in this case the tobacco industry), and often obscuring the connection between them. In Australia, leaked private documents revealed that the supposed anti-plain packaging retailer grass roots movement, the Alliance of Australian Retailers was set up by tobacco companies and that the Director of Corporate Affairs Philip Morris Australia, Chris Argent, played a critical role in its day-to-day operations.⁵⁶⁵⁷⁵⁸

• For more information on this front group, and Philip Morris Australia’s involvement, visit the Alliance of Australian Retailers page.
• For more information on front groups funded and/or organised by PMI and other tobacco companies, see the list on the Expose Tobacco website.

Lobbying of Decision Makers

Article 5.3 of the The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) explicitly aims to reduce industry influence in public health policymaking by obliging parties to protect their health policies from tobacco industry interests and interference.⁵⁹ Yet tobacco industry representatives, and third-parties regularly attempt to influence public health policymaking in the industry’s favour. This section details some of these incidents involving PMI and the response of the governments and the global health community.

EU

PMI reported that it spent between €1,250,000 and €1,499,999 in 2019 lobbying EU institutions, employing only 2 fulltime equivalent staff in its Brussels office.¹² If this data is correct, it suggests that PMI relied heavily on external lobbying firms. A 2013 leaked internal PMI document revealed that the company had 161 lobbyists working to undermine the revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).⁶⁰ The objective of PMI’s campaign was to either “push” (i.e. amend) or “delay” the TPD proposal, and “block” any so-called “extreme policy options” like the proposed point of sales display ban and plain packaging.⁶¹

• For more information on PMI’s campaign to undermine the TPD, go to EU Tobacco Products Directive Revision and PMI Mobilised Support from Retailers.

UK

The leaked internal PMI documents from 2013 also revealed the extent of a multi-faceted campaign against Plain Packaging in the UK, including a detailed media campaign using dozens of third parties (both individuals and organisations) to promote its arguments against the policy. The documents also included a detailed political analysis of potential routes of influence for the tobacco company (Image 1).³⁶

One third party appointed in November 2011 to help PMI oppose the plain packaging proposal was the Crosby Textor Group. This appointment led to a conflict of interest scandal, given that Lynton Crosby co-Director of the Crosby Textor Group, was also the political election strategist for the UK’s Conservative Party, which was in power in the UK. David Cameron, then Prime Minister, insisted that Crosby never lobbied him about plain packaging. ⁶²⁶³ Despite a lack of evidence that Crosby lobbied the Prime Minister and Health Minister on plain packaging, documents released under FOI legislation, obtained by the University of Bath Tobacco Control Research Group, show that Crosby lobbied the UK Government on plain packaging via Lord Marland, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Intellectual Property, to oppose plain packaging. For more information on this lobbying scandal, go to Lynton Crosby’s page.

• For more detail on PMI’s attempts to undermine plain packaging proposals in the UK, visit: PMI Mobilised Support from Retailers | PMI’s Anti-Plain Packaging Lobbying Campaign | PMI’s Anti-Plain Packaging Media Campaign | PMI’s “Illicit Trade” Anti-Plain Packaging Campaign
• For information on the tobacco industry’s tactics to undermine this tobacco control measures, visit our pages on: Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Company Opposition | Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Research, Expert Opinion and Public Relations | Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Built Alliances | Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Third Party Campaigns
• PMI also opposed the tobacco product display ban gradually introduced in the UK from 2012. More information on PMI’s tactics to stop this measure, see: Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban

Australia

Australia has one of the least hospitable regulatory environments for the tobacco industry, having passed regulations banning advertising since 1976, a point of sale ban in 2011, and a plain packaging law in 2012. It also has regulation in place to prevent the sale of nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and HTPs.⁶⁴

The industry has not, however, given up on attempting to market its products and lobby decision makers across the country. In a 2019 article, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Tammy Chan, Managing Director of PMI Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific wrote letters to health organisations urging them to enter into a “dialogue” on PMI’s “smoke-free” vision in the lead up to a parliamentary select committee meeting on the impact of e-cigarettes on “personal choice”.⁶⁵

In March 2019, PMI was accused of “subliminal advertising” in its sponsorship of the Ferrari Formula One team during the Australian Gran Prix in Melbourne. PMI has been accused of attempting to evade advertising bans by sponsoring motorsports teams.

• For more information see Motorsport Sponsorship

Latin America

José María Aznar, the former Prime Minister of Spain, has been widely reported by media outlets as having taken up a position as a lobbyist for PMI in Latin America.^66676869

• For more information on his meetings with public officials in Chile and Peru, as well as his history of association with the tobacco industry while in office, see our page on José María Aznar.

Intimidating Governments with Litigation or Threat of Litigation

PMI has legally challenged tobacco control regulations across the globe, including:

• Comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance (2010 and 2016) and Tobacco-Free Generation Ordinance (2016) in Balanga, Philippines. A front group for the world’s biggest tobacco companies, including PMI, called the Philippine Tobacco institute (PTI) sued the city of Balanga in August 2017 over the Comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance, which it argued was “arbitrary and oppressive” and cost PMI USD$420,000 a month in lost sales. In July 2018, regional courts ruled in PTI’s favour, noting that although the city’s tobacco control efforts were “commendable”, they were also unconstitutional. PTI launched another lawsuit in May 2018 to challenge the constitutionality of the city’s Tobacco-Free Generation Ordinance.⁶⁵
• The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Second Amendment Rules, 2018 text and pictorial health warnings law in India. PMI affiliate Godfrey Phillips India sought a stay of implementation of new legislation requiring health warnings to increase to cover 85% of the surface of cigarette packaging, from the High Court of Karnataka in Bangalore, India. The Court rejected the request for stay in August 2018. The legality of the Rules themselves was at the time pending in the Supreme Court.⁷¹
• The May 20, 2016 Decree plain packaging law in France. In December 2016, the Conseil d’Etat (the Council of State, the highest administrative jurisdiction in France) dismissed a six-part legal challenge jointly brought against the plain packaging law by JTI, Philip Morris France, BAT France, a tobacco paper manufacturer and The National Confederation of Tobacco Retailers of France (Confédération Nationale des Buralistes de France).⁷²
• In 2013, the mayor of Popayán, a city in southwestern Colombia, issued a decree prohibiting tobacco sales within 500 metres of schools, libraries and health institutions. Following heavy lobbying from Coltabaco, a Philip Morris affiliate, the radius was decreased to 200 metres. Coltabaco sued Popayán in March 2015, arguing that a mayoral decree was insufficient to effect legitimate regulation. Coltabaco won its lawsuit in September 2015.⁷³
• The Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (UK). Following the passage of the legislation in March 2015, PMI and others launched a legal action, which it lost in May 2016 (the day before the legislation was due to come into force).⁷⁴⁷⁵
• The 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). PMI and BAT attempted to invalidate the TPD as a whole, or various provisions within it, but this legal challenge was dismissed in the European Court of Justice in May 2016.⁷⁶ More details can be found on the page TPD: Legal Challenges.
• The Ministry of Public Health Notice of Rules, Procedures, and Conditions for the Display of Images, Warning Statements, and Contact Channels for Smoking Cessation on Cigarette Labels of 2013 (Thailand). In July 2013, Philip Morris Thailand and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) Thailand requested a temporary injunction against an increase of picture and text health warnings from 55 to 85 percent of the front and back of cigarette warnings. Though their request was initially granted in August 2013 in the Central Administrative Court of Thailand, the injunction was reversed in May 2014 by the Supreme Administrative Court following appeal by the government. PMI and JTI ultimately withdrew their legal challenge.⁷⁷
• Following heavy criticism of its “Be Marboro” campaign worldwide (see below), Germany banned PMI from displaying “Be Marlboro” advertising in the country. A German court overturned the ban in 2015, stating that the wording of the advertisements did not explicitly target younger than legal age smokers.⁷⁸
• National Systems of Health Oversight RDC No. 14/2012 Brazil. The Brazil Health Regulatory Agency’s (ANVISA) resolution No. 14 banned tobacco additives and flavours. The National Confederation of Industry (Confederação Nacional da Indústria) challenged the ban as an unconstitutional use of regulatory power. In February 2018, the highest court in Brazil, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, upheld the 2012 ban and reaffirmed the right of ANVISA to regulate tobacco products.⁷⁹
• The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Australia). PMI fiercely opposed the legislation, fearing that it might set a global precedent. The company fought this legislation unsuccessfully on three fronts:
  • World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge: In 2014, PMI supported a request by the Dominican Republic government before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, alleging that Australia’s plain packaging laws breach the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).⁸⁰ Similar requests were submitted by Ukraine, Cuba, Indonesia and Honduras, and furthermore, a record number of more than 40 WTO members joined the dispute as third parties.⁸¹
  • Constitutional challenge: In March 2012, PMI supported a claim made by British American Tobacco (BAT) in December 2011 before the Australian High Court that plain packaging was in breach of the Australian constitution.⁸² On 15 August 2012, the Hight Court ruled that plain packaging was not in breach with the Australian constitution as there had been no acquisition of property as alleged by the tobacco companies.⁸¹
  • Bilateral Investment challenge: In 2011, PMI started legal proceedings against the Australian government for allegedly violating the terms of The Australia – Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty.⁸³ In December 2015, The Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a unanimous decision that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. For more information on all three claims go to Australia: Challenging Legislation.
• Executive Decree No. 611 passed on 3 June 2010 in Panamá. Philip Morris Panamá joined onto a claim of unconstitutionality brought by British American Tobacco (BAT) against a ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) and tobacco product display at the point of sale. BAT Panama claimed the ban violated freedom of expression and property rights, among others. The Supreme Court ruled in May 2014 against BAT, noting that, among other things, freedom of expression could be restricted in order to protect public health.⁸⁴
• 2010 Amendment to the 1973 Act relating to the Prevention of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco (the Tobacco Control Act) in Norway. The Norwegian display ban on tobacco products came into effect on 1 January 2010 after an amendment was passed by the government in favour of the prohibition of visible tobacco products, smoking accessories and vending machines of tobacco products. PMI unsuccessfully challenged the ban as imposing a barrier to trade; the Oslo District court ruled in favour of the display ban in September 2012.⁸⁵
• Ordinance 514, dated 18 August 2008, and Decree 287/009 dated 15 June 2009 (Uruguay). PMI unsuccessfully challenged the Uruguayan Tobacco Control Act which included a mandate for 80% health warnings on tobacco packets. The case was decided in favour of public health in 2017.⁸⁶ PMI brought its claim under the Switzerland-Uruguay Bilateral Investment Treaty at the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. The tribunal ruled in favour of Uruguay in July 2016.⁸⁷

Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products

As the harms from conventional products have become better understood, and tobacco control measures have been put in place, the cigarette market – from which tobacco companies make most of their profits – has started to shrink. To secure the industry’s longer-term future, transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have invested in, developed and marketed various newer nicotine and tobacco products.⁸⁸  

In January 2017, PMI issued a press release which stated that the company intended to move its business away from conventional tobacco products entirely (see Image 2).⁸⁹ The company’s much publicised vision for a “smoke-free” future is one in which PMI plays a central role in “[providing] better alternatives to smoking for those who don’t quit”.³ Integral to this vision was the release of IQOS in 2014. By 2016, PMI was the market leader in heated tobacco products (HTPs), accounting for over 99% of the global HTP market.⁷⁰ By 2018, PMI’s share of the global HTP market had fallen to around 80%.⁷⁰⁹⁰ PMI reported that by the end of 2019, IQOS was available in 52 markets, including the United States (US), and a number of lower income countries.⁹¹

• For more information on IQOS and PMI’s newer products see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International and Heated Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International.
• See also PMI’s Promotion of IQOS Using the FDA’s 2020 Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) Order

In April 2019, a life insurance company Reviti was launched. Registered in the UK at Companies House, Reviti is a wholly owned subsidiary of PMI.⁹²⁹³ The London-based company specialises in offering policies to smokers, with discounts for those who reduce or switch to PMI’s newer products.⁹⁴

In May 2022, PMI made an offer of US$16 billion deal to acquire Swedish Match, a manufacturer of snus and nicotine pouches, as well as chewing tobacco, snuff and cigars.⁹⁵⁹⁶ Swedish Match had planned to sell its cigar business but these plans were put on hold in March 2022.⁹⁷ PMI CEO Jacek Olczak said of the deal: “An important aspect of this proposed combination is the opportunity in the U.S., which is the world’s largest market for smoke-free products.”⁹⁸PMI is also hoping to significantly increase its market share of newer nicotine products in Europe and Asia.⁹⁹ 

As of 28 November 2022, PMI had acquired over 90% of Swedish Match, gaining control of the company and enabling it to buy the remaining shares and take Swedish Match off the stock market.¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹

• For details see Swedish Match

Tobacco companies, including PMI, also invest in therapeutic products, such as nicotine lozenges, gum and inhalers. More information can be found on this page: Tobacco Company Investments in Pharmaceutical & NRT Products

“Smoke-Free” Campaigns

PMI has run various “smoke-free” campaigns promoting its newer products, including “Hold My Light” (UK); “Unsmoke Your World” (global); “It’s Time” (targeting policy makers); and “Futuro sin Humo” (in Mexico).

• For details see: Philip Morris International: “Smoke-Free” campaigns

Participation in Global Platforms to Rehabilitate Image

PMI has attempted to gain access to many high-level international events as a means of “rehabilitating its image and securing influence over global institutions and policy elites”. Since January 2019, PMI presence has been documented at:⁷⁰

January 2019

• World Economic Forum (WEF; Davos, Switzerland): PMI launched its first “white paper” to coincide with WEF. Though it was not an invited guest, PMI held a side-event co-hosted by the Wall Street Journal, and sponsored the Davos Playbook, Politico’s daily newsletter distributed to attendees.

June 2019

• (Group of 20) G20 Summit (Osaka, Japan): PMI took out a two-page advertisement in The Japan Times promoting its corporate transformation and reiterating the need for dialogue between decision-makers and industry.
• Cannes Lions International Film Festival of Creativity (Cannes, France): PMI attended Cannes to talk about newer tobacco products and potentially recruit celebrity activists to its cause.¹⁰² In addition, PMI had its own schedule of events, hosted by actress Rose McGowan and rapper Wycliff Jean. It also spoke in the festival’s Good Track stream alongside organisations including Greenpeace and UN Women. The decision to include PMI on the Good Track was heavily criticised in the light of “the ethics of proclaiming a smoke-free philosophy while continuing to sell billions of cigarettes a year”.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴

October 2019

• United Nations General Assembly (UNGA; New York City, USA): Though barred from participating directly in the UNGA, PMI hosted a parallel event at Concordia, a high-level event to foster partnerships between businesses, governments and UN agencies. In attendance were officials from the UN’s World Food Program, the UN Foundation and the World Bank as well as PMI’s Vice President of Global Partnerships and Cooperation, who spoke at the event. Bob Eccles, a paid PMI advisor, spoke at the UNGA during a side event on Exclusion and Engagement in Sustainable Investing.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• PMI Mobilised Support from Retailers
• PMI’s Anti-Plain Packaging Lobbying Campaign
• PMI’s Anti-PP Media Campaign
• PMI’s “Illicit Trade” Anti-Plain Packaging Campaign
• PMI IMPACT
• Philip Morris vs the Government of Uruguay
• Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban
• Philip Morris’ Regulatory Litigation Action Plan Against the Display Ban
• Philip Morris’ Marlboro Brand Architecture
• Codentify
• Motorsport Sponsorship
• Digital Coding & Tracking Association (DCTA)
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: How it Frames Itself for a detailed analysis of the ways in which the Foundation portrays itself and those who oppose the Foundation, plus the counter evidence to these portrayals
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World People
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Centres of Excellence
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International
• Heated Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International

Relevant Links

• Read the STOP report: Addiction At Any Cost: The Truth About Philip Morris International
• Philip Morris International company website
• Cancer Council Australia’s Critiques of KPMG Australia illicit tobacco trade reports
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World website
• PMI Impact website

TCRG Research

• The Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: tax return sheds light on funding activities, T. Legg, S. Peeters, P. Chamberlain, A. Gilmore, The Lancet, 2019, 393(10190):2487-2488
• The revision of the 2014 European tobacco products directive: an analysis of the tobacco industry’s attempts to ‘break the health silo’, S. Peeters, H. Costa, D Stuckler, M. McKee, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 2016, 25(1):108-117
• ‘It will harm business and increase illicit trade’: an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012, K. Evans-Reeves, J. Hatchard, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 2015, 24(e2):e168-e177
• Illicit trade, tobacco industry-funded studies and policy influence in the EU and UK, G, Fooks, S. Peeters, K. Evans-Reeves, Tobacco Control, 2014, 23(1):81-83
• Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: Analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials, S. Peeters, A. Gilmore, PLoS Medicine, 2013, 10(9):1001506
• Towards a greater understanding of the illicit tobacco trade in Europe: a review of the PMI funded ‘Project Star’ report, A. Gilmore, A. Rowell, S. Gallus, A. Lugo, L. Joossens, M. Sims, 2013, Tobacco Control, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051240

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

References

The post Philip Morris International appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Career with British American Tobacco

Graham joined W.D. and H.O. Wills, a BAT company, in 1996 as a sales representative.¹⁰⁵
In 2001 Graham became BAT’s Director of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs.¹⁰⁷ He regularly spoke out against anti-smoking groups, or “zealots” as he labelled them, and opposed legislation aimed at reducing smoking. He once called such efforts an “extreme case of nanny state and social engineering”.¹⁰⁸
Graham left BAT in 2006 to start his own consultancy.¹⁰⁵

Flooding Health Officials with Freedom of Information Requests

The New Zealand Sunday Star Times reported in September 2009, that Graham, after leaving BAT, had “showered” the New Zealand Ministry of Health with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests relating to health NGOs.¹⁰⁹
A 2010 study by Wong et al published in Tobacco Control, documented that 84% of FOI requests lodged with the New Zealand Ministry of Health between 2005 and 2009 had originated from the tobacco industry, including Graham’s PR company.¹¹⁰ The paper did not disclose the exact number of FOI requests submitted by Graham, but documented that ten “industry-related sources” had requested information relating to tobacco control expenditure.
In the article in the Sunday Star Times, Graham denied he had been paid by the tobacco industry to lodge the FOI requests.¹⁰⁹ Instead he claimed that he had acted out of his personal interest to keep the government to account for its spending on tobacco control.¹⁰⁹ “There is an official gravy train, he Graham says, where the government will spend $55 million through 115 groups on tobacco education and control. Yet despite spending ‘millions and millions’ of dollars every year, there was little to show for it.”¹⁰⁹
Wong and co-authors argued that the nature and timing of the industry-related FOI requests, including those made by Graham, were aimed at disrupting New Zealand tobacco control policy, and a clear abuse of “legal avenues designed to protect the public’s right to access to official information”.¹¹⁰
The tobacco industry has used FOI on a number of occasions in Australia, the US and the UK to impede tobacco control progress. For more information see our page on Freedom of Information Requests.

Anti-Regulation Blogging on Tobacco and Food

Graham has been a guest blogger on kiwiblog.co.nz since August 2015.¹¹¹ In March 2017 he posted a blog discrediting the New Zealand government’s tobacco policy.¹¹² Graham claimed that recent increases in tobacco tax were wreaking “havoc” on small retailers and leading to an increase in illicit tobacco trade. He further criticised the government’s stance on e-cigarettes, arguing that there was an unprecedented support for tobacco harm reduction, which was “an opportunity that should not be lost”.¹¹² A year earlier, Graham had also criticized the government’s opposition to e-cigarettes.¹¹³
Tobacco hasn’t been the only public health subject Graham blogged about. In March 2016, Graham criticised the British sugar tax, claiming that “No sugar tax will stop people consuming can of Coca-Cola if that’s what they want”.¹¹⁴
In 2015, Graham criticised the amount of money spent on fighting obesity, labelling researchers working in this field and in receipt of public funds “groups that do little aside from talk to themselves at conference for which they’ve utilised public money to organise, and naturally attend”.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• British American Tobacco
• Countering Critics
• Third Party Techniques
• Freedom of Information Requests
• Harm Reduction
• E-cigarettes

References

The post Carrick Graham appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco, for simplicity referred to as Imperial) is a transnational tobacco company that is headquartered in Bristol, United Kingdom (UK). It is the fourth largest tobacco company in the world, after Philip Morris (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), and Japan Tobacco International (JTI), and excluding the Chinese National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC).¹¹⁵

The company has no relationship to Imperial Tobacco Canada, which is a subsidiary to BAT.

According to Euromonitor International, in 2020 Imperial Brands held  under 4% of the global cigarette market (by retail volume, including China. Figures rounded).¹¹⁵ The company reported a net revenue of UK£8 billion, with conventional tobacco products contributing over 97% of total revenue, and newer nicotine and tobacco products contributing less than 3% of total revenue.¹¹⁶

Its parent company, Imperial Tobacco Group was rebranded to Imperial Brands in February 2016, and consists of the following companies: Imperial Tobacco, ITG Brands, Logista, and Fontem Ventures (and within it, e-liquids manufacturer Nerudia).^117118119

In 2020, Imperial Brands divested from its cigar business, selling its subsidiary Worldwide Premium Cigar (including Tabacalera and Premium Cigar RoW), to tackle the company’s growing debt.¹²⁰

In 2020 Imperial operated in 160 countries, selling cigarettes, roll your own (RYO) tobacco, smokeless tobacco, cigarette paper, and cigars.¹²¹ Its main brands are Davidoff, Gauloises Blondes, JPS, West, Fine, News, Winston, Bastos, Lambert & Butler and Parker & Simpson (cigarettes); Drum and Golden Virginia (RYO), skruf (Swedish-style Snus); Rizla (cigarette papers and filters). Its e-cigarette brand is Blu and its heated tobacco is Pulze.

The company’s key markets are the Unites States (US), Germany, Australia, Spain and the UK. In 2020, these markets contributed more than 70% of Imperial’s profit, with the remaining profit coming mostly from other European markets and African markets.¹²²

Imperial used to be the UK’s cigarette market leader, but lost that position in 2015 to JTI.¹²³

Employees or Board Members: Past and Present

A full list of the company’s leadership team can be accessed at Imperial’s website.

Over the course of 2019, Imperial underwent significant changes in leadership and strategy. On 3 October 2019, it was announced that Alison Cooper, Imperial’s Chief Executive since May 2010, would step down¹²⁴ The announcement came after the company issued a profit warning that reduced the company’s anticipated revenue growth.¹²⁵

In July 2020, Stefan Bomhard was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer, on a five-year contract. Bomhard previously held leadership roles at various multinational companies including Bacardi Europe, Cadbury and car dealership Inchape.¹²⁶¹²⁷

Bomhard’s appointment was followed by the announcement of a renewed five-year-strategy in January 2021.¹²² Imperial announced renewed focus on conventional cigarettes in its priority markets, including “advertising at age-verified music festivals and comedy events” and the “use of brand influencers and product placement in bars and nightclubs”. It stated an aim to continue investing in newer products, focusing on heated tobacco products (HTPs) in Europe and e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS) in the US.

• For more information on Imperial’s investments, see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Imperial Brands

The new strategy also referred to investment in the African markets, stating its aim to “turn Africa from an unloved asset to a platform for future growth”, with a “supportive market environment with improved affordability as incomes increase”.¹²⁸

• Read more about Tobacco Companies investment in Africa and other emerging economies on our Africa’s Tobacco Epidemic page

Other people that currently work for, or have previously been employed with, the company:
Roberto Ascoli Drago Azinovic Arthur van Benthem Ken Burnett Sue Clark Helen Clatworthy Fernando Domínguez Robert Dyrbus Gareth Davis Louise Day Kevin Freudenthal Roberto Funari David Haines Michael Herlihy Nikos Mertzanidis Peter Middleton Almos Molnar Susan Murray Iain Napier Matthew Phillips Walter Prinz Michiel Reerink Richard Ross Berge Setrakian Alessandro Tschirkov Mark Williamson Titus Wouda Kuipers Colin Wragg Malcolm Wyman Waldemar Zegar

Affiliations

Memberships

In 2020, Imperial Brands was a member or supporter of the following organisations:

Asia Pacific Travel Retail Association (APTRA)¹²⁹ | Associate Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group | Tobacco Europe (formerly CECCM) | European Rolling Papers Association (ERPA) | European Smoking Tobacco Association | European Travel Retail Confederation (ETRC) | Public Affairs Council¹³⁰ | Tobacco and Nicotine Products Chemicals Group (formerly Tobacco Industry Platform)¹³¹ | Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association¹³²

Imperial Brands is, or has been, a member of the following e-cigarette trade associations, as Fontem Ventures and its e-cigarette brands:

UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) |  Vape Business Ireland | France Vapotage |  VITA of Canada  |  Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) |  Scottish Grocers’ Federation (SGF)

Imperial Brands previously listed membership of the following organisations:¹³³

Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) | British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium | BusinessEurope | European Cigar Manufacturers Association (ECMA) | European Smokeless Tobacco Council | Euraffex/ European Affairs Expertise | Industry and Parliament Trust (see Rosemary Brook)¹³⁴ | Institute of Business Ethics¹³⁵| Kangaroo Group | MARQUES | Wirtschaftsrat

The company has also been a member of the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT) since 2001.¹³⁶ The ECLT has a partnership with the International Labour Organisation, a United Nations agency, focussed on issues related to labour such as international labour standards, social protection and unemployment.¹³⁷ Surinder Sond from Imperial Brands is listed as a board member of the ECLT in its 2019 annual report.¹³⁸

Consultancies

Imperial Brands has worked with the following public relations (PR) companies:

• Aspect Consulting lobbied for Fontem Ventures in the UK in 2017¹³⁹
• Bell Pottinger lobbied for Imperial in the UK and Brussels from 2010 to 2016^{140141142143144145}
• FTI Consulting named Imperial Brands on its client list in 2016¹⁴⁶

• In 2019, Fontem Ventures was listed on the UK lobbying register as a client of David Alexander, Director of UK Sports PR agency Calacus.¹⁴⁷

Think Tanks

In May 2012, the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) at the University of Bath asked Imperial to disclose which think tanks the company was funding, and had funded over the last few years. The company replied that it did “not wish to participate in your research”.¹⁴⁸

In response to a specific query made in 2014 in regards to Imperial’s engagement with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a UK-based think tank supported by corporations and which has repeatd tobacco industry messages, Imperial’s Head of Regulatory Science, Steve Stotesbury, replied: “We [Imperial] have been supporters of the IEA for many years, stretching back well over a decade”.¹⁴⁹

Imperial also held historical links with the Democracy Institute, a think tank based in the UK and US. In 2006 the company funded a book published by the Democracy Institute, which argued there was no evidence that graphic health warnings on tobacco, food, and alcohol packaging would work.¹⁵⁰

• See: Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: No Evidence Plain Packaging Will Work to read more about the evidence behind standardised packaging.

Controversial Marketing Strategies

Targeting Women and Girls

In 2011, the tobacco industry introduced cigarette packs to the market that were specifically designed to attract female consumers. Imperial launched its Richmond SuperSlims, promoted as “the first superslim brand in the value-price cigarette sector”. At the time, The Grocer retail magazine reported that the pack was embossed with a “stylish pink design”, and that it was “clearly designed to appeal to female smokers”.¹⁵¹

As of 2021, Imperial Brands continue marketing their “specialist [cigarette] brands” which “appeal to specific consumer groups”¹⁵² Amongst these is Jadé, a brand of superslim cigarettes with a logo featuring cursive letters and a stylised butterfly logo.¹⁵³

It is worth noting that plain packaging legislation introduced in Australia in late 2012, and in the UK in May 2016, does not address the size of the cigarette stick and its use as a marketing vehicle to target specific consumer demographics.¹⁵⁴The legislation bans slim cigarette packs, but not slim individual cigarette sticks.¹⁵⁵

• For more information on tobacco companies’ efforts to market its product to female consumers, go to Targeting Women and Girls.

Pre-empting Plain Packaging Legislation in Australia

In September 2012, a few months before plain packaging legislation was introduced in Australia, Imperial Tobacco Australia changed the packaging of its Peter Stuyvesant cigarette pack to show a ripped pack exposing plain packaging underneath (see image 1 below). The accompanying slogan said “it’s what’s on the inside that counts”.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷

The Australian Health Minister criticised Imperial’s marketing campaign, saying that “diseased lungs, hearts, and arteries are the reality of what is happening on the inside to a smoker”.¹⁵⁶

• For more detail on Imperial’s “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” campaign, go to Plain Packaging: Imperial Tobacco Australia Pre-empts Legislation

Image 1. Screen grab of Peter Stuyvesant packaging Australia September 2012. Screengrab from the Telegraph¹⁵⁶ (archived webpage)

Complicity in Tobacco Smuggling

Imperial has argued that tobacco control legislation, in particular plain packaging, might lead to unprecedented levels of illicit tobacco trade. The company has made these claims in its 2012 and 2014 Submissions to the UK Consultations on standardised packaging.

In 2016, ahead of the introduction of plain packaging in the UK, Imperial Brands launched a “Suspect it? Report it!” anti-illicit trade campaign. In January 2017, Imperial collaborated with the Federation of Independent Retailers (known at the time as National Federation of Retail Newsagents) to “educate independent retailers and UK smokers about the growing trade in illegal tobacco”.¹⁵⁸ The collaboration saw 50,000 packs branded with Imperial’s “Suspect it? Report it!” campaign distributed to retailers, containing infographics, posters and stickers.

In contrast to Imperial’s campaign, which portrays the tobacco company as the victim of illicit trade, there is strong historical evidence of Imperial’s complicity in facilitating the smuggling of their own cigarettes.

In 2021, Imperial (alongside BAT) was reportedly found to be oversupplying its products in Mali, through a local subsidiary company, and accused of supporting conflict in the area by fuelling the illicit trade. Imperial’s responded it is committed to opposing tobacco smuggling, which it stated “benefits no-one but the criminals involved”¹⁵⁹

In 2002, genuine Imperial brands accounted for more than half of the 17 billion cigarettes smuggled into the UK.¹⁶⁰ The company claimed ignorance when it was questioned about over-supplying countries notorious for smuggling at the Commons Public Accounts Committee, to which Imperial’s chief executive was told: “One comes to the conclusion that you are either crooks or you are stupid, and you do not look very stupid.”¹⁶¹

Internal documents from Gallaher (now part of JTI), released through litigation, refer to Imperial’s “highly aggressive” smuggling activities in the 1990s, blaming Imperial’s smuggling for Gallaher’s weakening position in the UK market.¹⁶²

• For more information on Imperial’s involvement in smuggling, see Imperial and Gallaher Involvement in Tobacco Smuggling or read our article Tobacco industry rallies against illicit trade – but have we forgotten its complicity? published in The Conversation, 16 March 2015.

Tactics to Subvert Tobacco Control Campaigns and Policies

Imperial has strongly opposed tobacco control legislation and regulations, including plain packaging in Australia and the UK, and the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) in the European Union (EU). The company has used a variety of strategies and tactics to influence tobacco control policies, and subvert existing regulations.

Discrediting Science and Scientists

The tobacco industry has long tried to undermine science and legitimate anti-tobacco messages from scientists to get around, weaken, or discredit tobacco control legislation. According to one tobacco executive, “doubt” was the best means “to compete with a body of fact and establish controversy”.¹⁶³

In 2011, Imperial strongly criticised a study commissioned by the UK Department of Health,¹⁶⁴ which concluded that England’s smoke-free 2007 legislation had positive benefits for public health. The study also concluded that the legislation had no obvious negative impacts on the hospitality industry, contrary to claims made by the tobacco industry.¹⁶⁵

Imperial criticised the three-year review as being “lazy and deliberately selective”, and furthermore accused the study’s author, Professor Linda Bauld, of having a conflict of interest due to her links to the charity Action for Smoking and Health (ASH).¹⁶⁶

• For further information on Imperial’s attempts to discredit Professor Bauld, and the subsequent hate campaign by others that followed, visit our page on Professor Linda Bauld.

Using Freedom of Information Requests to Counter Health Campaigns

In February and March 2011, acting on behalf of Imperial, Bell Pottinger, persistently requested access to research data that supported an anti-RYO tobacco health campaign run by regional charity SmokeFree South West.¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁸

• For more information on Imperial’s Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, see the FOI: SmokeFree South West page.

Fabricating Support through Front Groups

Imperial has used front groups to oppose tobacco control legislation. Front Groups are organisations that purport to serve a public cause while actually serving the interests of a third party, and obscuring or concealing the connection between them.¹⁶³

In 2010, Imperial Tobacco Australia (in collaboration with PMI and BAT) financed the Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR) to oppose the introduction of plain packaging in Australia.¹⁶⁹ The AAR claimed to represent the owners of local corner stores, milk bars, newsagents and service stations, but did not reveal that it was financed by tobacco companies and run by tobacco company executives and a PR company.¹⁷⁰ The purpose of the AAR was to argue that plain packaging would cause economic damage to small Australian retailers.

• For more information on this front group, and Imperial Tobacco Australia’s involvement, visit the Alliance of Australian Retailers page.

In 2013, to promote the tobacco industry’s tracking and tracing system, Codentify, Imperial, BAT, PMI and JTI jointly set up the Digital Coding & Tracking Association (DCTA), which often failed to disclose its relationship to the tobacco industry in its statements.

• For more information, visit our page on the Digital Coding & Tracking Association (DCTA).

Corporate Political Advertising

In June 2012, Imperial attempted to influence UK Members of Parliaments’ (MPs) views on the plain packaging debate by running an anti-plain packaging advertising campaign in The House magazine, a magazine designed for MPs (see image 2 below).¹⁷¹

The company did not reveal itself as the funder anywhere on the front page advertisement.

• For more information on Imperial’s ad, and the debate it sparked, see Imperial Promotes Opposition to Plain Packaging.

Image 2. Imperial Tobacco cover of The House magazine in plain packaging, June 2012

Hospitality for UK Politicians

In 2014, Imperial gifted Wimbledon tennis tickets to Members of Parliament (MPs) Aidan Burley, Mark Field, and Mark Pritchard.¹⁷²

Imperial also gifted Wimbledon tickets to Lord Pendry in 2005, 2008 and 2012.^173174175

In the 1990s, the tobacco company provided the following hospitality to MPs:¹⁷⁶

• Jacqui Lait MP and her husband attended the 1999 Scotland v England rugby match courtesy of Imperial
• MPs attended a 1998 and 1999 Lords v Commons Clay Pigeon Shoot at Highclere Castle sponsored by Imperial
• Conservative MPs Ian Taylor and John Townsend attended the 1997 rugby international England v New Zealand at Twickenham, courtesy of Imperial.
• In 1995, Imperial gifted a lunch and two tickets for the Men’s Singles final at Wimbledon to Liam Fox, at the time the MP for North Somerset

Our page on Tobacco Industry Hospitality for UK Politicians provides more detail on gifts and hospitality provided to MPs and peers by Imperial and other tobacco companies.

Direct Lobbying of Decision Makers: the EU Tobacco Products Directive

In the financial year 2014-2015, when the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) was undergoing its first revision, Imperial reported to have spent €400,000 – €499,000 lobbying EU institutions, employing five fulltime equivalent staff in its Brussels office.¹³⁰

Lobbying disclosure records by Conservative Members of European Parliament (MEPs) show, that in 2011 and 2013 Imperial  met with UK MEPs Giles Chichester, Ashley Fox, Emma McClarkin, and Anthea McIntyre to discuss the revision of the TPD.^177178179

Imperial and other tobacco companies were given several opportunities to share their views on the TPD review with the European Commission’s Health directorate, DG SANCO, and Health Commissioner John Dalli.¹⁸⁰¹⁸¹

• To read more about the controversies that lead to the resignation of then commissioner Dalli, see TPD: Dalligate

But Imperial also lobbied other directorates on the TPD. In 2011, Bell Pottinger tried to broker access to officials in DG Trade and the Secretariat General on its behalf

• for more details see Bell Pottinger and Tobias Ghersetti

In July and September 2012, Imperial attended meetings with DG ENTR (Enterprise and Industry) as part of a delegation with Tobacco Europe (known as CECCM at the time),¹⁸²¹⁸³ and in October 2012 the company directly met with DG Trade.¹⁸⁴

With the exception of DG SANCO, EU officials were not systematically transparent about their contact with Imperial and other tobacco companies at the time of the 2014 EU TPD Review.¹⁸⁵ Some meetings only became public knowledge due to FOI requests.

Similar concerns have re-emerged in light of the third revision of the TPD in 2021, with Tobacco Control advocates raising concerns about tobacco companies, including Imperial Brands, access to the EU institutions.

• For more information on the lack of transparency around the TPD review process, go to our page on EU Tobacco Products Directive Revision.

Documents released by the UK Department of Health have also revealed that Imperial had access to confidential information from the European Council concerning the 2014 TPD review.¹⁸⁶ Despite the Department of Health asking the company to explain how it came into possession of this confidential information, Imperial refused to disclose its source.

• More detail on the controversy surrounding Imperial’s access to confidential government information, can be found on Imperial Receives Inside Information from the European Council.

Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives

To help rehabilitate its image as a responsible business that “acts with integrity and lives its values”¹⁸⁷, Imperial ran a number of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. These initiatives not only attempt to rehabilitate the company’s image, but also make it easier for the company to gain access to decision makers.

To make it easier for smokers to smoke whilst travelling, yet be seen to comply with smoke-free legislation, Imperial launched its Smoking Allowed campaign in 2011, aimed at providing smoking shelters across UK airports.¹⁸⁸ Apart from supporting smokers, Simon Clark, the director of Forest, suggested that the campaign also “challenges the Orwellian ‘denormalisation’ of smoking”.¹⁸⁹

In 2013, Imperial co-founded the Love Where You Live campaign in the UK, aimed at encouraging individuals, companies and local groups to clean up after themselves (image 3 below).¹⁹⁰ The campaign gave Imperial the opportunity to partner with government, who supported the project. More information on this CSR initiative can be found on the page CSR: Imperial and Love Where You Live.

Image 3. Love Where You Live website, April 2012

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, tobacco companies made extensive use of CSR campaigns, as a strategy to gain legitimacy, increase public trust and advance its business interests. Imperial utilised this tactic, donating ventilators and donating in support of social causes in Ukraine and Germany^191192193

Intimidating Governments with Litigation or Threat of Litigation

Imperial has legally challenged tobacco control regulations in the UK, EU and Australia, including:

• The Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) ACT 2010. The company argued that the ban on tobacco display and cigarette vending machines falls outside the legislative scope of the Scottish Parliament.¹⁹⁴ This challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court in December 2012, but delayed the introduction of the display ban by 2 years.
• The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Australia). Imperial unsuccessfully challenged the legality of standardised packaging legislation in Australia. For more information, go to Australia: Challenging Legislation.
• The Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (UK). Imperial first threatened with litigation against the UK Government in 2012, if the Government were to implement plain packaging legislation.¹⁹⁵ Following the passage of the legislation in March 2015, Imperial and others launched a legal action, which it lost in May 2016 (the day before the legislation was due to come into force).¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁷
• The 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). Imperial formally supported a legal challenge brought by PMI and BAT to invalidate the TPD as a whole, or various provisions within it. This legal challenge was dismissed in the European Court of Justice in May 2016.¹⁹⁸ More details can be found on the page TPD: Legal Challenges.

Interfering with Democratic Processes

In February 2019, a campaign was launched under the European Union (EU) Commission’s “Citizen’s Initiative” called “Let’s demand smarter vaping regulation!”¹⁹⁹ Imperial launched and part-funded this campaign which proposed revoking article 20 of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which “requires EU Member States to introduce restrictions on the advertising of electronic cigarettes”.²⁰⁰

The accompanying website, promoted by Imperial Brands, portrayed it as a “grassroots” campaign to support a change in regulation, by differentiating e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco products.²⁰¹

This is a clear example of ‘astroturfing’, a well-known tactic used by the tobacco industry to interfere with tobacco control legislation.²⁰²²⁰³

• For details see: Imperial Brands Use of the EU Citizens’ Initiative

Circumventing EU Menthol Ban With New Products

The 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive Revision, passed into UK law in 2016, banned the sale of menthol cigarettes and rolling tobacco, as menthol was deemed a ‘characterising’ flavour.²⁰⁴

Pipe tobacco, cigars and smokeless products such as e-cigarettes and snus were exempted from this flavour ban. After lobbying from tobacco companies, and a legal case brought by the Polish Government, a four year delay was granted.²⁰⁵²⁰⁶ The sales ban was due to come into force in May 2020.²⁰⁷

In December 2019, Imperial announced that it was launching a new Rizla product in the UK in January 2020; a cardboard insert which could be put into a packet of cigarettes or rolling tobacco, to infuse the product with one of two flavours – “Menthol Chill” or “Fresh Mint”. The company argued that this product was an “accessory” and therefore not covered by the tobacco product regulations.²⁰⁸ The regulations state that the ban includes “tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components such as filters, papers, packages, capsules or any technical features allowing modification of the smell or taste of the tobacco products concerned”.²⁰⁹

In January 2018, Imperial had relaunched one of its cigarette brands, JPS Green, with a menthol-infused packet liner, which it claimed would be “more effective at transferring flavour to the cigarettes than traditional menthol tips”.²¹⁰

In February 2021, Imperial released its “New Crush” Embassy cigarettes designed “specifically for ex [menthol] crushball smokers”, featuring a “cooling sensation filter”, promoted to be used specifically alongside its menthol-flavoured cardboard inserts.²¹¹

COVID 19

Tobacco companies including PMI, JTI, Imperial Brands and Altria Group all raised their sales or profit targets, saying the industry had done better than expected in 2020 mostly in US and EU. Imperial reported an increase in revenue from cigarettes due to increased smoking rates during the pandemic. ²¹²²¹³ Throughout the first half of 2021, Imperial has reported growing market shares in their priority markets, and is expecting further growth from its wholly-owned European logistics business Logista.²¹⁴ In December 2020, French media reported that Logista had concluded an agreement with the Spanish Ministry of Health for the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the country.²¹⁵

Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products

As the harms from conventional products have become better understood, and tobacco control measures have been put in place, the cigarette market – from which tobacco companies make most of their profits – has started to shrink. To secure the industry’s longer-term future, transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have invested in, developed and marketed various newer nicotine and tobacco products.⁸⁸

For details of Imperial’s investments see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Imperial Brands

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Fontem Ventures
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Imperial Brands
• E-cigarettes: Imperial Brands
• Cigarette Companies Investing in Snus
• Targeting Women and Girls
• Plain Packaging: Imperial Tobacco Australia Pre-empts Legislation
• Imperial and Gallaher Involvement in Tobacco Smuggling
• Linda Bauld
• FOI: SmokeFree South West
• Alliance of Australian Retailers
• Corporate Political Advertising on Plain Packaging
• Tobacco Industry Hospitality for UK Politicians
• CSR: Imperial and Love Where You Live.
• Smoking Allowed
• Australia: Challenging Legislation.
• Imperial Receives Inside Information from the European Council
• TPD: Legal Challenges
• Digital Coding and Tracking Association (DCTA)
• Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing (ECLT) Foundation

Relevant Link

• Imperial Brands website

TCRG Research

• The revision of the 2014 European tobacco products directive: an analysis of the tobacco industry’s attempts to ‘break the health silo’, S. Peeters, H. Costa, D Stuckler, M. McKee, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 2016,25(1):108-117
• ‘It will harm business and increase illicit trade’: an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012, K. Evans-Reeves, J. Hatchard, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 2015,24(e2):e168-e177
• Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: Analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials, S. Peeters, A. Gilmore, PLoS Medicine, 2013,10(9):1001506

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 Imperial Brands appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Employees at William E. Wecker Associates

Key people at the firm have been idenitfied as:²¹⁷

• William (‘Bill’) Wecker – Founder and President
• Laurentius Marias – Vice President
• Stephen R Hoff – Vice President
• Karen Taves – Principal Consultant

Relationship with the Tobacco Industry: Multiple Tobacco Clients

Wecker Associates has been a consultant to tobacco companies since 1990, when RJ Reynolds commissioned the firm to scrutinise the methodology underlying the Cancer Prevention Study II (CP SII), a prospective mortality study started in 1982 by the American Cancer Society.²¹⁸
Wecker’s website, accessed in January 2018, listed Altria, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris International as clients, and named Japan Tobacco International and Lorillard as former clients (see images 1 & 2).²¹⁹

Used Freedom of Information Request to Access Lung Cancer Patient Records

In January 2018, The Daily Telegraph reported that in July 2016 Wecker Associates had requested, and successfully obtained, data from Public Health England (PHE) under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.²²⁰ PHE, the executive arm of the UK Department of Health, was asked for lung cancer patient records “to examine the role regulation should play and the relationship between tobacco use and cancer”.
It remains unclear which tobacco client was behind Wecker’s FOI request, and to what end. According to PHE, it had released the information “under our legal duty to comply with the Freedom of Information Act”.
However, it is now well documented that tobacco companies misuse FOI legislation to impede tobacco control progress.²²¹ For some examples, go to:

• FOI: SmokeFree South West
• FOI: Stirling University
• FOI: University of Bath

Expert Court Testimonials on Behalf of Tobacco Industry

Wecker Associates has provided expert court testimonials on behalf of the tobacco industry in a long list of American legal actions, where smokers and/or state governments sought to recoup healthcare costs on tobacco companies.²²² Its depositions have challenged the methods used to estimate health harms, medical cost, or other arguments used against tobacco companies.
For example, a 2010 class action against Philip Morris USA claimed that the tobacco company had misled people about the amount of tar and nicotine delivered to smokers of Marlboro ‘Light’ cigarettes.²²³ Bill Wecker testified that low-tar cigarettes were indeed associated with a statistically significant reduction of lung cancer risk, contrary to the scientific consensus on this issue.²²⁴
Below is a selection of other lawsuits in which the firm acted as the tobacco industry’s expert witness:

• 2012: Willard R. Brown et al. v American Tobacco Company²²⁵
• 2010: Dayna Craft, Jason Stone, Deborah Larsen, Wendu Alper-Pressman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Philip Morris Companies Inc and Philip Morris Incorporated
• 2005: United States of America v Philip Morris Incorporated et al²²⁶
• 2003: United States of America v Philip Morris²²⁷
• 2003: Susan Miles v Philip Morris Companies (No. 00-L-112)²²⁸
• 2002: Lawrence Lucier and Laurie Lucier v Philip Morris Inc.²²⁹
• 2002: Bullock v Philip Morris Inc.
• 2000: Gloria Scott et al. v American Tobacco Company²³⁰
• 1999: Engle v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company²³¹
• 1998: State of Arizona v American Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco, Ligget & Myers, Lorillard Tobacco Company, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, RJR Nabisco, United States Tobacco Company, BAT Industries, British American Tobacco Company, the Council for Tobacco Research USA, Tobacco Institute Inc.²³²
• 1998: State of Washington v American Tobacco Company²³³
• 1998: Patricia Hemley v Philip Morris Inc. et al.
• 1997: Joann Karbiwnyk v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company²³⁴

A 2006 peer-reviewed study by Max and Tsoukalas showed that Wecker Associates, and other tobacco industry defend, were part of a tobacco industry legal strategy to create doubt and confusion about whether or not smoking caused disease that led to increased healthcare costs, at a time of unprecedented legal action against the industry.²³⁵ The defenders’ role was also to argue that economic models used to calculate costs incurred by plaintiffs were not appropriate and that data sources used because they did not consist of the individuals whose health care costs were being sought.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Altria
• Philip Morris USA
• Philip Morris International
• Japan Tobacco International
• Tobacco Institute
• Freedom of Information Requests
• Legal Strategy

Relevant Link

• William E. Wecker Associates website

References

The post William E. Wecker Associates appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

In the mid-1990s, the US Tobacco Institute noted how it was using the FOIA as an intelligence gathering exercise: “The FOIA style requests at the state level have proven to be our most useful means of gathering information about our opposition”. ²³⁷
One recent scientific study from New Zealand concluded that: “Tobacco companies portray themselves as socially responsible corporate citizens. Yet they abuse legal avenues designed to protect the public’s right to access official information.”²³⁸

New Zealand is not an isolated case. In 2011 Philip Morris filed Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get hold of the raw material of Stirling University’s research into young peoples’ smoking habits. This cost the Stirling Management School a lot of energy, time and money to deal with request; the industry got access to research that had been used to decide on new laws, and could use the insights in lobbying decision makers, while simultaneously misrepresenting the results and undermining the credibility of the scientists involved. This evolved into a Smear Campaign targeting Linda Bauld of Stirling University.

In September 2011, The Independent newspaper reported how in the UK the tobacco industry was “covertly using third-party companies to lobby against smoking restrictions and to gain access to health documents held by public organisations.” The paper continued: “Public relations companies and law firms are working on behalf of anonymous multinational tobacco companies without declaring who their clients are”.

The paper highlighted two cases, one where Philip Morris’ lawyers had tried to access data and another where Imperial’s PR company Bell Pottinger had used the libertarian group Big Brother Watch to try to access material through FOI.²³⁹

TobaccoTactics Resources

• FOI: Stirling University
• FOI: SmokeFree South West
• FOI: University of Bath
• Also see: Australia: Freedom of Information Requests
• A list of pages in the category Freedom of Information Requests

TCRG Research

“They try to suppress us, but we should be louder”: a qualitative exploration of intimidation in tobacco control, B.K. Matthes, R. Alebshehy, A.B. Gilmore, Globalization & Health, 19:88,  2023, doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00991-0.

Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature, B.K Matthes, P. Kumar, S. Dance, T. Hird, A. Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, A. B. Gilmore,  Global Health 19, 42 (2023), doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7

References

The post Freedom of Information Requests appeared first on TobaccoTactics.