Examples of multinational industry's involvement in Nordic NMA's statements
| Issue | NMA/country | Drafts or comments by tobacco company or affiliate organisation | Year | Outcome |
| Proposal for voluntary restrictions on SHS4 155 | Norway | Tobacco Institute | 1972 | No restrictions were issued |
| Enactment of product liability law148 | Norway | Philip MorrisBATCovington & BurlingICOSI | 1980 | No provisions that explicitly mentioned tobacco products |
| Proposal for new health warning labels6 156 | Sweden | Philip Morris | 1985 | 7 out of 16 labels made more favourable to the industry |
| Proposal to ban the use of words such as ‘light’ and ‘mild’157 | Finland | Philip Morris | 1986 | Delayed until 2002 |
| Proposal for a new tobacco law76 158 | Norway | Philip Morris | 1986 | Alliance with employers association and labour unions: blocked until 1988 |
| Government publication on health hazards of smoking159–161 | Sweden | Philip MorrisCovington & Burling | 1989 | Publication was revised by health authorities to accommodate tobacco industry's concerns |
| Ban on new nicotine products103 | Norway | Philip MorrisBATCovington & Burling | 1989 | Law proposal was redrafted |
| Proposal for a new tobacco law162 | Finland | Philip Morris | 1992 | Law was delayed |
| Inclusion of SHS in the list of carcinogenic substances163 164 | Finland | Philip Morris | 1992, 1995 | Implemented |
BAT, British American Tobacco; ICOSI, International Committee on Smoking Issues; NMAs, National Manufacturers Associations; SHS, secondhand smoke.