Objective Corporate social responsibility activities, such as third-party awards, provide an opportunity for tobacco companies (TCs) to promote themselves as socially, economically and environmentally responsible organisations. This study aimed to determine how TCs are using third-party awards to frame themselves and their core activities via company-controlled communication channels.
Methods TC-owned media coverage promoting third-party awards was identified from company-owned media channels, including websites, reports, press releases and Twitter. Using framing theory and thematic analysis, frames and broader themes were identified using a process of inductive coding.
Results TC-produced media content promoting third-party awards framed the companies as socially and environmentally responsible organisations, which excel at business and are innovative and transformative. Dominant frames identified included excellent workplace culture, championing diversity and inclusion and action on the environment.
Conclusion TCs are capitalising on the perceived credibility and objectivity of third-party awards using these ‘honours’ as a promotional strategy to justify their continuing role in society and enhance their perceived legitimacy in relation to claims of ethical and responsible behaviour. The results of this study have implications for tobacco control advocacy, as continuing to allow the promotion of these awards appears to contravene or conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
- Tobacco industry
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
- Social marketing
- Public policy
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The study data are available upon request to the lead researcher.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Conceptualisation: BM, KW, MD, KM, JJ. Methodology: KW, MD, KM, JJ. Project administration: BM. Supervision: KW, KM, JJ. Data curation: BM. Formal analysis: BM. Writing—original draft: BM. Writing—review and editing: BM, KW, MD, KM, JJ. Guarantor: JJ.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.