Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #114376

Nathaniel Wander, PhD, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education/ Dept of Social & Behavioral Science, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street Ste 455, Box 0612, San Francisco, CA 94143-0612, 415-514-9342, nathaniel.wander@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 0612, San Francisco, CA 94143-0612.

Tobacco industry documents illustrate a complex nexus of relationships between the investment consulting firm of Wilshire Associates, the distinguished funds expert Richard Koppes, 1990s deliberations over public fund tobacco stock divestment, and Philip Morris strategies for countering such divestment. These relationships converged in 1996, when Wilshire was employed to analyze the merits of continued tobacco stockholding versus divestment, first for the Washington State Board of Investments, and shortly thereafter, by Philip Morris. While emphatically advising Washington State that there were no “statistically significant” differences between returns from indexed funds or from hypothetical, parallel funds excluding tobacco, Wilshire emphasized these insignificant differences in its report for Philip Morris. For PM it asserted that indexed funds including tobacco had historically done better than hypothetical ex-tobacco funds would have done; that PM had consistently outperformed even the indexed funds; and that both the indexed funds and Philip Morris had far outperformed a motley, apparently convenience sample of socially-responsible investment funds. PM distributed this report under its own auspices, as well as arranging to have it distributed by Koppes. Koppes, appears to have disguised his PM connection, while lending his imprimatur to the report. This study of relationships between Wilshire, Koppes and Philip Morris shows how the tobacco industry exploits commonalities of financial interests, and raises questions about when experts and consultants may be said to have crossed the line of acceptable business ethics.

Learning Objectives: Participants will be able to

• articulate how the tobacco industry conflates its financial interests with mainstream “financial values;”
• recognize rhetorical devices that obscure apparently “objective” financial reporting;
• assess ethical issues in the use of the “third party” public relations technique.

Keywords: Tobacco Industry, Tobacco Control

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.