Tobacco industry opposition: absence of a unified response

Contrasting fierce industry opposition against national smoke-free policies,3 ,4 ,6 ,21 ,22 tobacco industry representatives reported that there “had not been much commitment” and the industry's response to the initiative had not produced “the well-oiled lobbying campaign that you might think it would have been”. These reports were corroborated by interviews with health advocates who described tobacco industry lobbying as limited, and the comparatively few consultation submissions from tobacco-related organisations (n=35, compared to 81 submissions from health-related organisations).23 The analysis, however, provided clear evidence of resistance to comprehensive EU smoke-free policy. Below, we distinguish between (1) tobacco company representatives, (2) tobacco-related actors (other than tobacco companies) with commercial interests in tobacco consumption and (3) non-tobacco or other commercial actors with primary interests beyond tobacco. Table 1 lists all actors identified as opposing comprehensive EU policy, according to their links with tobacco companies.

While various actors publicly voiced reservations about comprehensive smoke-free policy, the data suggest that the strongest counterarguments originated from tobacco manufacturers and tobacco-related actors. They advocated for an “EU-wide smoking ban with exemptions”, designated smoking rooms and exclusion of hospitality venues, private clubs, research laboratories and residential places.24 This preference resembled some member states’ policies, which were difficult to enforce and provided loopholes by allowing smoking in multiple public venues.3 ,25 Several tobacco companies, including British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International (JTI), Imperial Tobacco Group (ITG), Gallaher, Ritmeester, Gunnar Stenberg, and European and national tobacco manufacturers’ associations (TMAs), formed the core opposition. The plagiarism detection analysis showed that the wording of submissions from the Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers (CECCM, a European TMA representing companies including BAT, Gallaher, ITG and JTI), Gallaher Norway AS, Gunnar Stenberg AS, BAT Cyprus and the Estonian, Irish, Latvian and Lithuanian TMAs were almost identical (96–100% similarity according to Turnitin's index of originality). Submissions of the European Smoking Tobacco Association (ESTA), BAT Malta, and Finnish and Hungarian TMAs also showed very strong similarities (66–95%) with each other and the above organisations. An interviewee from a tobacco wholesaler reported that tobacco-related actors had exchanged draft texts and held “short rounds of agreements…and a vote” to achieve a common position and agree on a shared strategy to oppose the EU initiative. Joint actions were described as being led by CECCM in Brussels, which urged national TMAs to submit identical responses to achieve a ‘multiplier effect’ (tobacco wholesaler representative) and demonstrate strong and broad opposition. CECCM's centrality (degree centrality=16), which was considerably higher than that of other alliance members, and the alliance's comparatively high centralisation (44.7%) and compactness (0.58) scores confirmed CECCM's prominent status, positional advantage and ability to manage the hierarchically structured alliance. The sociogramme of opponents who submitted responses to the consultation (figure 1) illustrates the close collaboration between tobacco manufacturers and CECCM's central position within the industry alliance.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Actors who opposed comprehensive EU smoke-free policy and their relationships with each other; Black square: tobacco manufacturer, White circle: tobacco wholesaler, Light grey triangle: tobacco trade union, Dark grey diamond: social partner organisation.

Despite efforts to advance a unified response, tobacco companies seemingly struggled to fully align their positions. Contrasting the CECCM-led alliance, Philip Morris’ (PMI) response supported “a total smoking ban…in general public indoor spaces, such as stores, banks, hospitals, public buildings, and public transportation” without suggesting exemptions for specific venues.26 Mirroring PMI's attempts to argue for an abolition of the ban on snus under the revision of the EU tobacco products directive in 2010.27 PMI used the smoke-free debate as an opportunity to promote deregulation of alternative tobacco products. (EU law28 prohibits the marketing of oral tobacco across the EU apart from in Sweden, a ban which has been subject to repeated tobacco industry opposition.29) PMI's consultation response advocated product modification as a means to reduce harm, called for consideration of the ‘benefits’ of smokeless tobacco and suggested exemptions to EU smoke-free policy by allowing consumption of non-combustible tobacco products.26 Employing similar rhetoric, the International Smokeless Tobacco Company Inc (ISTC), an affiliate of the Altria subsidiary US Smokeless Tobacco Company, highlighted comparatively lower risks of smokeless tobacco and “support in the international public health community for adopting a tobacco harm reduction strategy”.30 This depicted agreement with supporters of comprehensive smoke-free policy who saw harm reduction as central to comprehensive tobacco control.30 ISTC called on the Commission to introduce “smokeless tobacco availability as a complementary policy option” to EU smoke-free policy.30 In the network structure analysis, PMI emerged as an outlier (ie, a member of neither the tobacco industry or tobacco control alliances), whereas the ISTC's position mirrored its unique location as the only tobacco industry actor in an alliance otherwise comprised of organisations with clear interests in health and tobacco control (figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2

All actors who submitted a response to the European Commission consultation on smoke-free environments and their relationships with each other (main component only); Black triangle: tobacco-related actors, White square: health-related actors, Dark grey circle: local authorities, Light grey diamond: social partner organisation.

Complementing documentary data, the interviews provided evidence of tobacco industry attempts to instigate, join and frame debates on, and direct attention towards, harm reduction. Such debates were conceived as offering unique public relation opportunities to reposition tobacco companies as reasonable and legitimate stakeholders who could add value to the policy process, lobby for removal of restrictions on smokeless tobacco products, and depict harm reduction policies as necessary adjuncts to prohibiting smoking in public places.Everything the tobacco industry has been doing in the last few years is…trying to find as many policy hooks as they can, including [the Recommendation], in order to build up support for snus as a safer alternative or even as a kind of a smoking cessation aid. (Lobbyist)

While keen to avoid being perceived as strongly opposing a policy aimed at protecting citizens from SHS harm, the CECCM-led tobacco industry alliance worked to hamper the policy process and derail the initiative. CECCM's submission strongly criticised DG SANCO staff for an approach to stakeholder consultations depicted as biased and undemocratic, and instead called for “dialogue and consultation with all interested stakeholders, including the tobacco sector” and for what it framed as a more inclusive approach to policy development.24 Representatives of tobacco wholesalers, the cigar industry and smokers’ rights’ organisations followed CECCM's lead in questioning the policy assessment that had been undertaken, arguing that the impact of smoke-free policies could not be accurately and comprehensively assessed.31–33 One letter from Roberto Zanni, CECCM's chairman, made available by an interviewee, indicates that efforts to disrupt the policy process culminated in July 2008 when tobacco companies turned to other DGs to denounce DG SANCO's approach. Zanni R. [Letter from Roberto Zanni to Alexander Italianer regarding impact assessment on the follow-up initiative on smoke-free environments]. Personal communication, 2008. The letter to Alexander Italianer, Deputy Secretary General of the European Commission and Chairman of the European Commission Impact Assessment (IA) Board, argued that “some of the methodological approaches employed in conducting the IA may not be entirely in line with the EU's IA Guidelines” and questioned whether DG SANCO's IA complied with the European Commission's Better Regulation strategy.

Finally, interviews revealed considerable increases in tobacco companies’ activity in the closing stages of the process. This intensification was triggered by the unexpected inclusion in the policy draft of calls to revise the Tobacco Products Directive and assess future EU policies regarding plain packaging and graphic health-warning labels.34 One health advocate reported that these flanking measures had been strategically inserted by representatives of governments supporting strong EU policy, calculating that late insertion would deprive opponents of time to devise an effective strategic response. According to a tobacco wholesaler representative, the industry was surprised by this move and unable to mobilise sufficient opposition to the proposed flanking measures. Despite “a huge amount of industry lobbying trying to keep all mention of plain packaging out of this recommendation” (public health advocate), industry representatives were unable to prevent passage of the amended text.

Factors reducing opposition to comprehensive EU smoke-free policy

In fighting comprehensive smoke-free policy, opponents argued that health risks from SHS were ‘relatively minor’,35 insufficiently proven33 ,36 ,37 or unfounded.32 ,38 Interviews with public health advocates, however, emphasised ‘conclusive evidence’ and ‘strong scientific consensus’ about the detrimental impacts of SHS and health benefits of comprehensive smoke-free policies as significantly impeding opposition. Policy evaluations in EU member states were employed by health advocates to highlight the feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability of comprehensive smoke-free policies and the inadequacy of partial measures.39–42 The strong evidence base and momentum in adopting national smoke-free legislation seemed to mobilise decision makers to adopt measures at EU level. Exposure of previous tobacco industry strategies was used to warn decision makers against industry interference, with advocates reporting that industry representatives were “trotting out the same arguments that they had trotted out in all the other countries where smoke-free legislation had been enacted”, so supporters “didn't really have a very difficult job to do in rebutting the industry”.

These factors, however, only partially explain the limited efforts of opponents in countering the development of the Recommendation. Arguably as important was the EU's restricted scope to adopt binding smoke-free legislation due to its lack of legal remit to harmonise national public health legislation, such that opponents did not perceive the initiative as a substantial threat. One tobacco industry representative, for example, reported that “the pressure came off the cooker” and considerable downscaling of lobbying efforts as soon as it was clear that binding legislation would not be supported in the Council of the EU. Similarly, representatives of other industries reported that the Recommendation was perceived as non-threatening and of a low priority, reflecting the implausibility of legal consequences and low probability of translation into national legislation.

Barriers to building an alliance against comprehensive EU smoke-free policy

Notwithstanding their general reticence about increasing EU regulation, membership links and previous collaboration with tobacco companies, the data indicate limited opposition to comprehensive EU policy from social partners and pan-European trade associations, like BusinessEurope (an organisation representing industry associations across Europe), the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), and the European trade association representing hotels, restaurants and cafés (HOTREC).43 ,44 In contrast to previous tobacco industry success in building opposing alliances with like-minded organisations,19 ,45 only one connection was identified between a tobacco-related actor and a non-tobacco actor (the German Employers’ Confederation, figure 1). Documentary data were supported by interview accounts, revealing that interactions between tobacco companies and representatives of other sectors were largely confined to information exchange. Reflecting on the “fear of association” and the reluctance of other commercial actors to publicly collaborate with tobacco companies, tobacco industry representatives confirmed that their attempts to build alliances were frequently rejected, resulting in “restricted room for manoeuvre” (tobacco wholesaler representative) and limited opportunities to counter the policy.

In addition to the low priority afforded to the initiative by pan-European organisations given the unlikelihood of binding legislation, structural features of EU policymaking seemed to further hamper alliance building. Pan-European commercial sector organisations struggled to reach consensual positions on the policy proposal, with several interviewees reporting cumbersome discussions. A tobacco industry representative, for example, reported that HOTREC had been “between a rock and a hard place” in balancing views of national members opposing the policy (primarily organisations from states with no or partial national legislation) and those willing to support the EU initiative (usually organisations from states with comprehensive legislation). Reflecting on similar difficulties of aligning diverse members, a representative of another umbrella organisation reported that having “to coordinate things with everyone…[often led to]…very general and…non-committal” positions.

Pan-European organisations also seemed to carefully weigh the benefits of opposing a specific EU-level initiative against a more general, long-term aspiration to be perceived as reasonable, progressive and constructive stakeholders, supportive of EU-wide cooperation. Strategic considerations about the impact of their responses on their public image and desires to not appear as “a kind of old-school, old type” but “modern” business (social partner representative) influenced organisational decisions on whether to demonstrate agreement with tobacco-industry organisations. While reporting that they had generally been opposed to comprehensive EU smoke-free policy and met with tobacco company representatives to exchange information and coordinate responses, several social partners and non-tobacco trade representatives recounted a reluctance to position themselves as tobacco industry allies. It is important to note that the guidelines to FCTC Article 5.3 were adopted at the third session of the Conference of the Parties in November 2008, that is, when EU smoke-free policy was negotiated.46 Aware of such discussions, other commercial sectors seemed keen to distance themselves from the tobacco industry and portray themselves as legitimate stakeholders, who took “balanced” (social partner representative) positions on EU policies. A representative of one pan-European umbrella business organisation with tobacco company membership, for example, was eager to highlight that tobacco industry members did not “punch above their weight” and that the organisation was “not there only to represent the tobacco industry”. Contrasting the tobacco industry's use of companies which focused on technical solutions to reducing SHS exposure as surrogates in national smoke-free policy debates,7 ,47 a representative of the European Alliance for Technical Non-Smoker Protection (EATNP) reported that some EATNP members had refused any contact with tobacco industry representatives because “they want to avoid that they are, from an image point of view, shuffled onto the side of the cigarette industry”. Instead, ventilation companies had sought to portray themselves as intermediaries in the policy debates which were “situated right in the middle” between the tobacco industry and public health organisations, providing protection from SHS while allowing smoking in public places (EATNP representative). Owing to the wide-spread perception of ventilation companies as tobacco industry allies, EATNP had, however, faced considerable constraints when attempting to collaborate with public health representatives.