CONFERENCE PROCEEDING
Envisaging a ‘smoke-free’ world: An exploratory study of Philip Morris International’s strategic positioning in Australia
More details
Hide details
1
Collaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
2
School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
3
European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
4
School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Publication date: 2021-09-02
Corresponding author
Kahlia McCausland
Collaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2021;19(Suppl 1):A64
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
While there has been a gradual reduction in combustible cigarette smoking rates across the developed world, there has been a sharp increase in the popularity and usage of e-cigarettes. Transnational tobacco corporations, including Philip Morris International (PMI), have developed their own e-cigarette and heat-not-burn (HNB) products to retain a foothold over their existing market share.
Objectives:
To use framing theory to critically analyse corporate communication materials from leading international tobacco company, PMI, and identify the prevailing themes used to challenge Australia’s existing e-cigarette regulations and garner public support for broader access to nicotine-containing e-cigarette products.
Methods:
This project utilised a case study research design to examine PMI and the complex interactions between the tobacco industry, policymakers and public opinion. Inclusion criteria for data collection were PMI’s communication materials - websites, social media, commissioned reports, submissions and transcripts to Australian e-cigarette inquiries - published between January 2018 and July 2019 relating to PMI’s e-cigarettes, HNB products or ‘smoke-free’ transformation.
Results:
Seven themes: 1) Tobacco harm reduction 2) PMI as a ‘good corporate citizen 3) Lobbying Australian Government to legalise nicotine-containing e-cigarettes 4) Advocating for smokers freedom of choice 5) Science and innovation 6) Improved public health outcomes 7) Justifying the presence of nicotine in reduced-risk products; and 19 subthemes emerged from the data.
Conclusions:
Developing strong, evidence-based, counter-arguments is critical to challenge PMI’s lobbying of Australian politicians, legislators and the public. These counter-arguments also equip legislators with knowledge and evidence to ensure existing e-cigarette regulations remain unchallenged by the interests of PMI and Big Tobacco in general. The public health sector can, therefore, use these findings to inform a decisive stance about these products and provide vital evidence-based information to the public about the unknown nature of their health risks, including the rationale behind the precautionary principle.
Funding:
None to declare.