Making Socially Responsible and Ethical Marketing Decisions Selling Tobacco to Third World Countries

Tobacco Dilemma

This case study is about how the tobacco industry has been selling their products to third world nations. After returning from Italy, my mother told me that while eating in an Italian McDonald's restaurant she noticed that not only did they sell those artery clogging deep fried apple pies no longer available in the United States; they were also using Styrofoam packaging that has been outlawed in the U.S. due to the unacceptable pollution levels they created. What does an Italian Big Mac wrapping have to do with the tobacco industry? Both scenarios are examples of what I feel are unethical behaviors? This paper attempts to provide insights into the social and ethical dilemma the tobacco industry is facing. Here in the United States, the tobacco industry has been forced to publicly admit that their products are addicting and that they have been lying about the dangers of nicotine and tar from smoking for many years. This admission has finally helped a great many American people to kick the habit.

Like McDonald's approach to ridding themselves of a highly pollutant package, the tobacco industry has been forced to look abroad to sell their cigarettes and third world nations have been targeted as the dumping ground. "By the year 2000 80% of the world's population will live in less-developed countries. These countries already consume more tobacco than the developed countries." (Chapman & Leng, 2004) United States tobacco companies have even had to go as far as litigation through the international court system to open up third world nations' boarders for U.S. tobacco products. As recently 2000, the Tobacco giants sued Thailand in General Agreement and Tariffs and Trade court to lower tobacco tariffs. The Tobacco companies obviously are trying to stay profitable. But, are they being ethical in their marketing efforts?

How a product is marketed makes a big difference in sales. "Brazil also has probably the highest level of tobacco advertising per capita in the world. When advertising stopped for a year, cigarette sales fell 4.8% in nine months." (Chapman & Leng, 2004) The American Cancer Society has been very critical in the media regarding the U.S. tobacco companies' marketing strategies. As the largest exporter of tobacco products in the world, U.S. tobacco companies have been criticized for selling cigarettes with tar levels well beyond those levels allowed in the United States. Also, the marketing efforts have been focused on women and children who prior to these new endorsements had relatively low numbers of smokers in the developing countries.

There are better strategies then selling the high tar cigarettes in third world nations. It simply can not be considered ethical when purposely addicting the poor women and children of the third world to a known toxin. On a recent 60 Minutes, a tobacco industry representative was discussing how United States consumers were not interested in tar free or greatly reduced nicotine products. The third world nations will never get a chance to try and see if they prefer these still dangerous but significantly safer cigarette products. The solution I propose is to sell these reduced nicotine and tar free products abroad. If the Brazilian example of marketing effect mentioned earlier holds true, then the tobacco companies should change their marketing campaigns to push safer products onto the third world nations. If the tobacco industry refused, could governmental regulation make them sell the safer product?

Unfortunately, the United States government may behind the move abroad. "U.S. pro-tobacco foreign policy is a major obstruction to fairer world trade and co-operation for a better environment." (Chapman & Leng, 2004) Once the courts finished with the United States Tobacco companies, the government was in no position to shut down such a large portion of our Gross Domestic Product. "The U.S. forcing of Japan, Korea and Taiwan to open their markets to tobacco and its current bullying of Thailand is more reminiscent of the European bullying of China to force it to accept opium than of a nation fighting for world morality." (Chapman & Leng, 2004) Our government has sacrificed its social and ethical obligation in its foreign policy in order to maintain its financial interests.