| Related sites for http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7257/375 |
| Upchurch,_Sean_A_ A Research Associate with the Immunology Department at the City of Hope Medical Center in California. Includes a resume, pictures, links, and information about himself. | | Feldhousen,_Robert Includes family, downloads, and links. | | Coker,_Steve-_Static_Dynamics Includes sports, personal information, and links. | | McGregors,_John A blow by blow account of John's progress through the process of coming onto the World Wide Web, learning the art of surfing, then the various aspects of Web publishing all from a beginners point of v | | Strawther,_Katy_-_Kittie_Kat\'s_Page This is a page about my life. Offers many personal pictures, thoughts, and related links. | | American_Society_of_International_Law International law resources, including analyses of current affairs, and a guide to Internet resources. | | Franklin_&_Marshall_College Department of Philosophy - Lancaster, PA. Background, faculty and staff, courses, major and minor requirements, Honors procedures and projects, and information on student research, department conferen | | University_of_Delaware Department of Philosophy - Newark, Delaware - BA | | The_Plague,_542_A_D_ An excerpt from Procopius', History of the Wars. | | First_Families This site focus on Jenna and Barbara Bush, but covers other First Families as well. | | The_Pink_Swastika Preface, contents, reviews, and ordering information for a book documenting the role of homosexuality in the Nazi Party. | | Swami_Prabuddhananda A teacher of Sanskrit, Vedanta and Yoga philosophy who has taught extensively in India, now teaching in New York. | | Advocating_Circumcision_Today A Jewish organization educating people about circumcision providing information and resources. | | Ruland,_Vernon Brief descriptions and ordering information for four books on psychology, ethics, and social anthropology by professor of world religions at the University of San Francisco. | | World_Islamic_Front__Jihad_Against_Jews_and_Crusaders Statement from Usama bin Laden purported to be a religious ruling ordering the killing of all Americans. Acts as evidence linking him to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. (Febr | | Sigma_Phi_Sigma_-_Ferris_State_University Co-ed professional fraternity for students studying to work in Forensic Science. Founded in Big Rapids, Michigan, in 2001. | | William_Jenkins_Worth Online biography of this U.S. General, second in command to Gen. Taylor, and his contributions to the War. | | Richard_Packham An atheist and former Mormon gives his reasons for rejecting Mormonism. | | Jesus_Empty_Tomb Explores the discoveries and conclusions from contemorary publications such as the Talpiot Tomb, the DaVinci Code and landmark archeology studies about the person of Jesus of Nazareth. | | Ludger_of_Utrecht Hagiographical essay, with links to other saints with whom Ludger is associated. |
|
Religious challenge by shareholder actions: changing the behaviour of tobacco companies and their allies -- Crosby 321 (7257): 375 -- BMJ
@import url(/css/common.css); @import url(/css/layout.css); @import url(/css/header.footer.style2.css); @import url(/css/services.css); @import url(/css/section.article.css); Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search, You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better. Search the BMJ
BMJ
BMJ Journals
BMJ Careers
BMJ Learning
BMJ Knowledge
BMJ Group
 Search this site: Advanced search Register for free services | Subscribe | Sign In Research Many religious groups refuse to own so-called "sin"stocks in companies associated with alcohol, gambling, or tobaccobecause they believe they are harmful and can be addictive. A coalition of religious institutions without such portfolio exclusions("screens") has developed a strategy for dealing with the tobaccoindustry and its allies by using their stock to challenge issuesthrough shareholder resolutions.In 1972 the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibilitywas established in New York. It now comprises a coalition of around 300 Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic institutional investors who use theirinvestments to challenge companies on various social issues. Since1980, members of the coalition have tried to persuade tobacco companiesto limit the yields of tar and nicotine in cigarettes sold indeveloping countries and to add health warnings on their packaging. Inthe past 10 years, however, the coalition has addressed other issuesassociated with tobacco, including spinning off a company's tobaccorelated business, cigarette smuggling, carcinogens, and advertising(for example, the campaign to promote cigarettes with a cartooncharacter called "Joe Camel"). The coalition has also challengedcompanies contributing filters or glue for tobacco products, mediacompanies with cigarette advertisements in magazines with a high youthreadership, restaurant chains that are not yet smoke free, and healthinstitutions giving preferential rates to non-smokers but which holdtobacco in their portfolios.Although the coalition has had slight success among tobaccocompanies, it has had most impact on the behaviour of corporations involved discreetly in tobacco. Until challenged, these corporations were quietly benefitting from their part in the tobacco industry.This article discusses the efforts of the Interfaith Center onCorporate Responsibility in the United States. It also briefly reviewsthe various positions on tobacco by religious denominations and showshow they have used stocks to try to bring about corporate change ontobacco related issues.Summary points Most religious institutions do not have strong policies ontobaccoFor the past 20 years a coalition of religious institutions in theUnited States has used shareholder resolutions to try to change thebehaviour of tobacco companies and their corporate alliesSuccessful shareholder actions include Philip Morris puttinghealth warnings on cigarette packs sold outside the United States,companies severing their part in tobacco production (Eastman Kodak, 3M,Sara Lee), and smoking being banned in restaurants owned by McDonald'sUnsuccessful resolutions can still educate shareholders aboutcorporate misconduct, shame the companies and executives for theirmisdeeds, and highlight a lack of interest in corporate reform  Methods Although Islamic and Jewish groups have issued strongstatements on tobacco, I have limited my discussion to mainlineChristian denominations in the United States. Comments arise from myongoing research, including a survey I sent to the headquarters of the Christian groups to prepare for the 10th world conference on tobacco inBeijing. I based my questions on six areas: whether the group or itsparent organisation had made any morality statement about tobacco;issues related to tobacco investments (screens, holding stocks,divestment, and shareholder involvement in tobacco concerns); smokefree workplaces; acceptance of monies from tobacco interests; whetherthe religious institution had ever honoured tobacco executives; andpersonal impressions and reasons why religious leaders have been silentor vocal on the issue of tobacco. I found that those groups with thestrongest positions on tobacco (like the Seventh Day Adventists) tendedto have a higher response rate than those with weaker or no positions,such as the Catholics. Among the Catholic institutions surveyed(including congregations of religious women and men, healthcaresystems, and archdioceses and dioceses), the archdiocesan and diocesanresponses were the weakest. It would be thought that religious institutions that purportedly existto promote moral values would be at the forefront of efforts to gettobacco companies and their allies to "do no harm." Yet, althoughthere are definite statements in some of the Protestant denominationsregarding smoking, I found only one major religious organisation, theAmerican Baptist Church, addressing the issue of executives and workersin the tobacco industry itself. Two thirds of Protestants indicated that their denomination had animportant moral position on tobacco, considering the body to be atemple of God, which smoking violates.1 The positions ofthe Protestant groups contrast strikingly with those of the RomanCatholic church. The closest the Catholic church has come to expressingany official concern about tobacco is in the Catechism of theCatholic Church: "the virtue of temperance disposes us to avoidevery kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, ormedicine."2 Also, the papal bull of Pope John Paul II,29 November 1998, outlined guidelines for indulgences that could begained during the 2000 "holy year," stating that the church wouldoffer a plenary, or full, indulgence (one per day) during the holy yearfor those who went to confession and communion, and then "abstain forat least one whole day from unnecessary consumption, such as. . . tobacco." Questioning this "indulgence for an indulgence," I wrote in aCatholic weekly newspaper: "the pope, the Vatican and the US bishops continually challenge Catholics on the issue of abortion. Butall have maintained virtual silence on the fact that, annually, cigarette smoking causes up to 141,000 abortions in the United Statesalone, according to the Journal of Family Practice. Does notthis number parallel the number of deaths coming from `partial birth'abortions?"3 4 The first resolution by church groups In 1980 I visited some of the men from my Capuchin Franciscanprovince working in Central America. I witnessed the ubiquity of the UStobacco industry, its advertising, and products (cigarettes were oftensold singly because people could not afford to buy them in packs).Having worked with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibilitysince 1973 and in my capacity as its corporate responsibility agent formy province, I asked the provincial treasurer to purchase 10 shareseach in Philip Morris and R J Reynolds Tobacco. I then filed on behalfof my province the first shareholder resolution to challenge thetobacco industry. Procedure Resolutions are filed only after dialogue and efforts at changehave proved problematic. Shareholder resolutions fall under the aegisof the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In 1980 no minimal amountof stock was needed to file a resolution and no time stated forownership of the stock. These days the commission requires an aggregateof at least $2000 of the stock, which must be owned at least one yearbefore a resolution is filed. The shareholder resolution must be fewerthan 500 words. Once a company receives a filing letter and resolution, it canrespond in one of three ways: it can try to dialogue with the proponentto reach an agreement that would result in withdrawal; it can includethe resolution in its annual proxy materials for the annual meeting(with its statement in opposition); or it can challenge theproponent's resolution at the Securities and Exchange Commission,trying to exclude it from the materials. This necessitates a counterresponse. If the resolution is voted on it must receive 3% of the votein the first year, 6% in the second year, and 10% in all successiveyears, in order to be "returned" that is, placed automatically onthe agenda of the company's next annual meeting. The resolution In the resolution I asked for a report describing both PhilipMorris's and R J Reynolds's various markets in Africa, Asia, andLatin America and the advertising, promotional activities, and costsassociated with these markets. I also asked for a description of thecompanies' policies related to the World Health Organization's recommendation to ban tobacco promotion, especially in developing nations; the limitation of tar and nicotine yields to US levels; andwhether the companies would inform consumers, through package warningsof the health hazards of smoking, in developing countries that at thattime had no requirements for warnings. Because the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility assumedthat the US surgeon general's warning on American cigarette packs wasenough to dissuade people from smoking, all of its resolutions until1990 were aimed at tobacco issues in developing countries. Furthermore,because a large percentage of the members were Protestant denominationswith "screens" against the "sin stocks," my efforts to maketobacco an issue on behalf of the centre failed for the first few years. My ministry of challenging the tobacco companies was first noticed in1985 in the New York State Journal ofMedicine.5 After this the Interfaith Center onCorporate Responsibility created an "issue group" for dealingspecifically with tobacco issues. The group is coordinated by asteering committee comprising myself and several leading advocates ontobacco control. A turning point A turning point in the centre's work came in 1989. Until then theSecurities and Exchange Commission had limited the centre's shareholder resolutions because the tobacco companies had argued thatmany of its concerns, especially those related to health and marketing,were "ordinary business." (The "ordinary business" clauseallows a company to omit a proposed shareholder resolution if it"deals with a matter relating to a company's ordinary business.") In 1989, however, members of the centre filed resolutions with PhilipMorris, American Brands (American Tobacco, now BAT), Loews (Liggett),and Kimberly-Clark (its annual sales related to tobacco amount tohundreds of millions of dollars) to amend their corporate charters tobecome tobacco free by the year 2000 (R J Reynolds had just goneprivate). The companies challenged the resolutions on "ordinarybusiness" grounds. The staff of the Securities and ExchangeCommission again ruled in favour of the companies. This time myCapuchin Franciscan province appealed on the basis of health and socialcosts through the attorney for the Interfaith Center on CorporateResponsibility. The commission then reversed its decision and notifiedthe full commission, which concurred. This enabled us to expand ourtobacco concerns, both in terms of the issues we could raise and therange of corporations we could address (table). View this table:[in this window][in a new window] Examples of religious shareholders' concerns related to tobacco,1990-2000 Successful challenges In October 1997, the Investor Responsibility Research Center, theindependent agency that reviews shareholder activity for institutionalinvestors, published an item on our work related to tobacco over theyears."(6) A few of our successes were emphasised (box).Achievements by religious shareholders6 1992: Philip Morris agrees to put health warnings on cigarettepacks sold outside the United States (this result was gained after 12 years of effort) 1994: McDonald's bans all smoking in all its corporateowned restaurants 1995: International Flavors and Fragrances stopsselling its additives to US tobacco companies (followed in 1986 byUnion Camp) 1995: Kimberly-Clark spins off its tobacco relatedbusiness 1995: Knight-Ridder (owner of publications such as theCharlotte Observer and Philadelphia Inquirer)restricts the acceptance of tobacco advertisements in its newspapers 1996: 3M announces a global phase-out of tobaccoadvertisements for its billboards 1997: R J R Nabisco Holdings ends its Joe Cameladvertisment campaign in the United States; it ends its campaignglobally in 1998 after another resolution is filed Some of our other "successes" include persuading Pfizer tostop selling its products to the tobacco industry for use in the growing of tobacco or the manufacture of tobacco products, persuading Eastman Kodak to stop making filters for cigarettes and persuading SaraLee to sell its unit for cut tobacco.7 The centre's most recent successful challenge is persuadingPhilip Morris to support state legislation restricting self service displays of tobacco products in retail stores to "behind thecounter." Although this will not necessarily limit tobacco sales, itshould prevent theft, an important means of minors obtainingtobacco.8 Additional benefits from shareholder resolutions Even when shareholder resolutions are not passed, they serveseveral useful purposes. The debate they generate at company annualmeetings helps to educate the shareholders about corporate misconduct.In a visible public forum the resolutions embarrass and shamethe companies and their executives over their misdeeds. Companyopposition to seemingly benign resolutionsfor example, those askingPhilip Morris, R J Reynolds, Loews, and UST (formerly known asUS Tobacco) to submit their advertising campaigns to anindependent assessment of their impact on young peoplereveals thecompanies' true lack of interest in self reform. And media coverage ofthese developments makes all of this known to policy makers and thegeneral public. In May 2000 I testified to the lack of change by thetobacco companies at the Engle trial in Miami. One resolution, despite not being passed, was noteworthy for itseducational value and was introduced at Philip Morris's annual meetingin 1992. It called for the company to sponsor a study of the impact ofcigarette advertising on young people. Wayne McLaren, a former Marlboromodel with inoperable lung cancer, seconded the resolution and spoke onits behalf.9 Conclusion Despite the apparent successes of the Interfaith Center onCorporate Responsibility in dealing with tobacco issues, irreparableharm is still being done. Yet when the centre finds itself discouragedat its modest results, it can comfort itself in knowing that itoperated from a different "bottom line" to that of most investors.Its definition of success cannot be measured by results but byfidelity. If fidelity is the determinant of the centre's success, Ithink the record will show it has indeed been successful. AcknowledgmentsMembers of the Interfaith Center on CorporateResponsibility's issue group on tobacco include MHC, Drs GregoryConnolly and John Slade, Richard Daynard and Edward Sweda of theTobacco Products Liability Project, and Tim Smith (executive directorof the centre). The author discussed his research at the 10th WorldConference on Tobacco or Health in Beijing, 1998. FootnotesCompeting interests: None declared. Tables detailing shareholdersvotes against tobacco issues appear on the BMJ's website References1. Holy Bible. 1 Corinithians 6:19-20. 2. Respect for Health.In: Catechism of the Catholic Church, No 2290. New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1994:551. 3. Crosby MH. Sins of tobacco require more than day'sindulgence. National Catholic Reporter 1998;18 Dec:24. 4. DiFranza JR, Lew RA.Effect of maternal cigarette smoking on pregnancy complications and sudden infant death syndrome. J Fam Pract 1995;40:385-394[Medline]. 5. Blum A, Fitzgerald K.How tobacco companies have found religion. NY State J Med 1985;85:445-450. 6. Shareholder success stories. IRRC Investor's TobaccoReport 1997 Oct. 7. Balu R, Beck E. Heeding critics, Sara Lee Corp. kicks tobacco.Wall Street Journal 1988;8 Apr:B1. 8. Wildey MB, Woodruff SI, Pampalone SZ, Conway TL.Self-service sale of tobacco: how it contributes to youth access. Tobacco Control 1995;4:355-361. 9. Blum A.Cowboys, cancer, kids, and cash flow: the 1992 Philip Morris annual meeting. Tobacco Control 1992;1:134-137[Free Full Text]. (Accepted 5 July 2000)© BMJ 2000   CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this? This article has been cited by other articles: Wander, N., Malone, R. E (2006). Making Big Tobacco Give In: You Lose, They Win. Am. J. Public Health 96: 2048-2054 [Abstract] [Full text] McDaniel, P A, Smith, E A, Malone, R E (2006). Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it. Tobacco Control 15: 215-223 [Abstract] [Full text] Malone, R. E. (2005). Assessing the Policy Environment. Policy Politics Nursing Practice 6: 135-143 [Abstract] This Article Extract  PDF extra: Tables Respond to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when responses are posted Alert me when a correction is posted View citation map Services Email this article to a friend Find similar articles in BMJ Find similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Read articles citing this article Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar
Contact us - Privacy policy - Web site terms & conditions - Site map HighWire Press - Feedback - Help - © 2000 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7257/375/" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-432960-5");pageTracker._setDomainName("none");pageTracker._setAllowLinker(true);pageTracker._initData();pageTracker._trackPageview(); |
|
