The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #60697

Nathaniel Wander, PhD, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, 415-514-9342, nwander@itsa.ucsf.edu and Ruth E. Malone, RN, PhD, Dept. of Social & Behavioral Sciences and Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390.

This paper examines tobacco industry strategies for opposing stock divestment, a tactic used by activists to increase the industry's costs of raising capital, isolate it from commercial partners and political patrons, and heighten public awareness of its objectionable behaviors. Beginning with "divestment" and its variants, we searched tobacco industry documents made public through the Attorneys-General Master Settlement Agreement and contemporaneous media reports. We identified over 1100 relevant documents, analyzing them for counter-divestment practices employed through time. From 1990 to 2000, the tobacco industry faced three waves of activism to divide it from its principle sources of U.S. investment capital. While activists used "public" strategies—joint press conferences with health and responsible-investor groups, legislative hearings—the industry played a potent "insider" game. Senior executives mobilized connections in politics, education, finances, high society, and the media. Taking advantage of overlapping board memberships, old school ties, and professional societies, they continuously fine-tuned their arguments, presenting them to institutional decision-makers directly or through well-chosen surrogates. Without halting the campaigns permanently, the industry won strategic battles, avoided others, and constantly strove to control publicity, succeeding in draining the movements' momentum at key instants.This study will help divestment activists conserve momentum by: 1) anticipating and preempting industry actions; 2) crafting strategies to influence institutional decision-makers; and 3) expanding activism to stock markets beyond the U.S., something the industry has feared for more than a decade.Funding: California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (11RT-0139).

Learning Objectives:

Learning Objectives: Participants will be able to:
• Anticipate and preempt industry strategies in practice;
• Craft effective counter-strategies drawing on tobacco industry documents.

Keywords: Advocacy, Tobacco Industry

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.