Tobacco Industry Case Study

Businesses may be focused on their missions, goals, and making a profit, but they must not forget their obligations to society. As huge companies have much power and influence, it is their responsibility to make sure that they do not cause irreversible harm to the society and the environment that helps sustain their business. Ethics in business is always a hot topic issue; the government of India has cracked down on the tobacco industry by banning the advertising and sponsorship of sports and cultural events by tobacco companies (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). The Indian government claims that is for ethical reasons; tobacco jeopardizes the health of its users and the government believes banning the advertising will help

Advertisements are meant to be eye catching; their goal is to entice people into buying and using their product or service. The advertising of tobacco glamorizes something dangerous, makes it look appealing, fun, or cool. This is especially dangerous when adolescents are exposed to such flashy advertisements, as they tend to be easier to influence- particularly with things considered ‘cool’ or ‘dangerous’. In 1997 the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company had to remove its Joe Camel mascot from all advertising (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). The mascot was an anthropomorphic camel- often featured in colorful and ‘cool’ looking advertisements. Companies utilize colorful cartoon characters in their advertisements to appeal to children, like Disney and Kellogg 's; therefore RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company’s use of such a character targeted children. The World Health Organization claimed that tobacco has caused over 3 million deaths in 1990 (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). It is argued that it is the government’s job to ensure the safety of its citizens, so

In 2000-2001, tobacco contributed 12% of the total excise revenue, with 90% of that being from cigarettes (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). There are also 26 million direct and indirect employees of the tobacco industry, to get rid of the advertising would surely displace some from their jobs as sales would be affected by the lack of advertising and promotion. Even if those who are in favor of the ban argue that cigarettes only contributed 0.14% of India’s GDP, they cannot argue that banning advertising would result in many employees losing their jobs. It is also debated whether or not it is within the government’s right to place such a ban. The Canadian Supreme Court even stated, “The State seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). Adult consumers are aware of the health risks and it is their choice to continue using tobacco products if they so wish. People are allowed to drink alcohol, which has health risks as well as the temporary impairment of judgment and rational thought, but it is legal and advertised; those in opposition of the ban question why one is being