Ethical Issues In The Tobacco Industry And Jamie Hardie Limited Company
1. “Ethics is a process of decision-making aimed at making right choices. Part of making the right choices is identifying and prioritising your responsibilities to yourself as a person, your profession and the wider community” (Breit 2007, p. 308). How are the PR activities of a) big tobacco in the post war period (Miller 1999, Stauber and Rampton 1995), and b) asbestos manufacturer James Hardie Industry Limited (JHIL) over the latter decades of the twentieth century, unethical? Why does this matter, and to what or whom?
2. Discuss the ways in which US public relations firm Hill & Knowlton created ‘legitimacy’ for the tobacco industry in the 1950s. You may use the documentary archival source "A Frank Statement to the Public by the Makers of Cigarettes" to show how this was done, by analysing its content, along with at least one other historical example (Miller 1999, Stauber and Rampton 1995 ). Analyse some of the long term ethical consequences of Hill and Knowlton's actions more broadly for the public relations industry as a whole, and for communication ethics, drawing on relevant theories and resources in Topic 1 and 2. In doing so, discuss the potential of 'corporate responsibility' (L'Etang & Pieczka 2006) to ameliorate these effects.
3. Drawing on the resources around the James Hardie Industries Limited (JHIL) case study, as well as relevant theoretical perspectives in Topics 1 and 2, discuss why the example of the ‘fully funded’ media release issued by JHIL on February 16, 2001 has far reaching implications for individual PR practitioners. With reference to this particular example, discuss if it is possible for practitioners to avoid the ethical lapses that can occur in ‘closed knowledge’ environments (Thompson & Thompson 2008), and reflect on why this case is significant for the public relations industry and its standards more broadly?
Please write around 1200 words, thanks.
1. “Ethics is a process of decision-making aimed at making right choices. Part of making the right choices is identifying and prioritising your responsibilities to yourself as a person, your profession and the wider community” (Breit 2007, p. 308). How are the PR activities of a) big tobacco in the post war period (Miller 1999, Stauber and Rampton 1995), and b) asbestos manufacturer James Hardie Industry Limited (JHIL) over the latter decades of the twentieth century, unethical? Why does this matter, and to what or whom?
Ethical Issues in the Tobacco Industry and Jamie Hardie Limited company
The lack of ethics in industries have been well documented throughout the years. The Tobacco industry and James Hardie have more in common with their PR activities in response to the public and rising health concerns than one may believe. Two different industries and in different decades, the similarities are profound, and both are known for putting their own self-interest above anything else, even lives.
In the mid-50s the Tobacco companies came forward and issued a joint ‘frank’ statement to its consumers about their standing on the issue of tobacco links to lung cancer. They discredited the findings of researchers and scientists who had found out that there was substantial evidence that tobacco smoking caused cancer. TI poked holes in the results and findings of the scientists. The TI claimed that for centuries tobacco has been linked to many diseases and science and research had proved that it was not the cause of the said diseases. They also claimed that the findings were inconclusive and therefore they had a degree of inaccuracy. The statement had a veiled attack on the reputation of the scientists who carried out the research citing questionable statistical methods.
Brandt (2012, p. 63) notes that the TI ‘used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.’ In the statement, the tobacco industry research committee sought to reassure its customers that it was safe to consume their products. The noted, ‘for more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation, and enjoyment to mankind.’ By listing some of the reasons why the people should not trust the findings of scientists who had linked cancer to cigarette smoking, the statement acted in bad faith rather than in the interest of the public and its consumers. They noted that distinguished authorities pointed out ‘that there could be many possible causes of lung cancer and there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of those causes.’ Issuing statements that discredit research findings without conducting a research to establish the truth about those findings is acting in bad faith. The tobacco industry issued the statement that pushed unsubstantiated claims and veiling it under the pretext that the company was acting in the best interest of the customer.
The tobacco industry also played the victim in the statement. It structured its language to show that it was the target. In the statement, it claims that, ‘regardless of the record of the past, the fact that cigarette smoking today should even be suspected as a cause of a serious disease is a matter of deep concern to us’ (Tobacco Industry Research Committee, 1953, para. 8). Playing victim without investigation to be sure that the charges leveled against the industry were true or false shows the extent to which the industry sought to maintain the status quo and maintain or grow consumption of their products. They were protecting the people from the truth of the harmful effects of their products to continue profiting from their potential death-causing habits.
Finally, when the tobacco industry decided to form a committee to conduct research into the claims by the independent scientists, it seemed it was a step to respond to the scientists who published findings linking tobacco to lung cancer. By the time meaningful steps were taken to discourage smoking, the tobacco industry reassurances led many individuals to continue to smoke, and therefore, suffer premature death and disability (Cole & Fiore, 2014, p. 132). In regards to what they should have done, the tobacco industry should have conducted research into effects of tobacco and find out its adverse...