Send letter to journal:
Re: this article

Dear Editor,

When we received the August 2005 issue of Tobacco Control, we found much in it to help inform our work, as usual.

I am writing, however, because we have some concerns about one of the articles published. “The perimetric boycott: a tool for tobacco control advocacy,” is described as a comprehensive analysis of a number of boycotts, including one organized by Infact (now Corporate Accountability International).

A key point overlooked by the authors is that Corporate Accountability International’s Boycotts are one strategy within a broader campaign challenging life-threatening corporate actions. Though we lifted the Kraft Boycott in June 2003 in celebration of the adoption of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, our Tobacco Industry Campaign continues to build momentum—-using the most effective strategies at any given time, and helping to make the WHO FCTC one of the most rapidly embraced UN treaties of all time.

As a membership organization, Corporate Accountability International has developed and carried out a number of grassroots consumer campaigns that have altered the cost/benefit ratio for a corporation to engage in irresponsible and dangerous practices. Our Nestlé Boycott is often cited as pivotal to the emerging corporate accountability movement in the 1970s.

Some of the most significant documented costs to Philip Morris/Altria from the Kraft Boycott included: harm to corporate name, reputation and image—among the most valuable assets of any corporation; direct expenses of salaries for management time spent dealing with the Boycott and its impact; lost management time that could have been spent on acquiring new sales and increasing shareholder value; public relations, advertising and corporate giving to maintain goodwill with consumers, the media and political leaders; and loss of employee morale, affecting both recruitment and retention.

While thorough attention to the effectiveness of our strategies as a movement is important for learning lessons as we move ahead, so too is careful attention to detail and context when critiquing strategies that have advanced our collective work.

Sincerely,

Patti Lynn Campaigns Director

Send letter to journal:
Re: A CALL TO ACTION

I read the article by Offen et al with great interest. It is an excellent elucidation of the concepts of ‘boycott,’ ‘buycott,’ and ‘perimetric.’ One opportunity for perimetric action not mentioned is the option each academic has to boycott and/or draw attention to universities and medical schools that accept tobacco industry funds or hold tobacco stock. (1) The converse is equally appropriate; ‘buycott’ centers that have clear policies abhorring tobacco investments or funding. When information on such policies – or the lack of them – becomes freely available, we can engage in “less research and more action” as has been suggested elsewhere. (2)