Tobacco is a killer. It kills more than 8 million people each year, including an estimated 1.3 million non-smokers who die because they are exposed to second-hand smoke. It was 60 years ago when the US Surgeon General published a report linking premature deaths from lung cancer and chronic bronchitis to tobacco smoking. But it was to be many decades before we saw the public discourse around tobacco begin to change and the stigmatisation of the tobacco industry start to take hold.
As scholars studying organisational and institutional change, we have focused on stigmatisation as a phenomenon. Despite that extensive research we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how industry stigmatisation progresses when that narrative is constantly contested by resourceful incumbents. In 1980 the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General first publicly stated that ‘smoking is probably the largest single preventable cause of ill health in the world today’ so this was the starting point for our revealing case study of the US tobacco industry between 1980 and 2016.
My co-authors and I for our paper, Discursive Struggles and Contested Stigma Extensions: Explaining the Gradual Stigmatization of the U.S. Tobacco Industry, chose the US tobacco industry because of its prolonged efforts to counteract stigmatisation, despite accumulating scientific evidence about the harmful effects of its products. Through an analysis of over 11,000 media articles and secondary sources, our study identifies three distinct phases in the stigmatisation of the tobacco industry:
- Establishing Harm (1980-1992)
- Assigning Responsibility (1993-2010)
- Creating New Norms (2011-2016)
Each phase reflects shifts in public discourse, driven by scientific findings, legal challenges, and societal expectations.
Phase 1: Establishing Harm (1980-1992).
During the 1980s, public discourse was dominated by discussions about the health risks of smoking. Anti-smoking groups, health scientists, and government entities highlighted the dangers of tobacco use, not just for smokers but also for non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke. These efforts were amplified by media coverage of scientific studies, such as the 1989 US Surgeon General’s report, which went even further than the 1980 one mentioned above, when it declared that smoking ‘remains the most important preventable cause of death in our society.’
Key mechanisms in this phase
- Stigma construction: Anti-smoking advocates used revealing strategies, such as exposing scientific evidence, to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco.
- Resistance work: The tobacco industry countered these efforts by questioning the validity of scientific claims and downplaying risks.
By the early 1990s, public awareness about the health risks of smoking had significantly increased, although the industry continued to resist acknowledgment of these harms.
Phase 2: Assigning Responsibility (1993-2010)
As scientific consensus grew, attention shifted to holding the tobacco industry accountable. A wave of lawsuits challenged the industry's deceptive practices, including efforts to obscure nicotine's addictiveness and target children through marketing. A turning point came in 1998 with the ‘Master Settlement Agreement’ (MSA) which was an agreement between the four largest tobacco companies and 52 state and territory attorneys general to settle dozens of state lawsuits. It required major tobacco companies to compensate states for the public health costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses.
Key mechanisms in this phase
- Stigma construction: Courts exposed internal documents revealing decades of deceit by tobacco companies.
- Resistance work: Smoking bans in public spaces and increased taxes on tobacco products underscored the industry’s societal responsibilities.
Despite significant resistance, the industry began to publicly accept some accountability by the end of this phase. Yet, stigma extension remained partial, with some groups continuing to challenge anti-smoking measures as infringements on individual freedom.
Phase 3: Creating New Norms (2011-2016)
The final phase saw the emergence of a new cultural environment where smoking was increasingly perceived as socially unacceptable. This shift was reflected in declining smoking rates, stricter packaging regulations, and campaigns to de-normalise tobacco use, especially among youth. US government agencies, such as the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), played a pivotal role by regulating tobacco products more comprehensively.
Key mechanisms in this phase
- Stigma construction: Anti-smoking advocates showcased the success of smoking cessation programmes and declining youth smoking rates.
- Resistance work: Tobacco companies shifted tactics, distancing themselves from traditional cigarette products and focusing on alternatives like e-cigarettes.
While the industry continued to challenge restrictions, the normative shift toward a smoke-free society had gained momentum, symbolising the culmination of decades-long efforts.
Understanding the role of discursive struggles
Central to the stigmatisation process were discursive struggles between anti-smoking advocates (stigmatisers) and the tobacco industry (targets). Stigmatisers used moral reasoning, scientific evidence, and regulatory support to broaden societal disapproval of tobacco. In contrast, the industry leveraged denial, deflection, and legal manoeuvres to resist stigmatisation.
Implications and Lessons
The gradual stigmatisation of the US tobacco industry offers valuable lessons for understanding how societal attitudes evolve:
- Non-linear progress: Stigmatisation is a contested process, marked by periods of resistance and breakthrough.
- Role of media: Public discourse, shaped by media narratives, plays a crucial role in amplifying or resisting stigma.
- Policy interventions: Regulatory measures can solidify shifts in public opinion, making stigma more enduring.
Conclusion
The US tobacco industry's journey from a mainstream player to a stigmatised pariah highlights the complex interplay of societal, legal, and cultural dynamics. This case underscores the power of collective action, discursive strategies, and regulatory frameworks in driving long-term societal change. And critically the insights from this study are really useful and valuable when dealing with other controversial industries. It can for example provide a roadmap in addressing stigma in areas such as fossil fuels, sugar, and fast fashion.
Background
This paper is coauthored by Ana Aranda (Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam), Eero Vaara (Saïd Business School, University of Oxford), Helen Etchanchu (Montpellier Business School) and Jonne Guyt (Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam). Our wonderful coauthor and dear friend Helen passed away earlier this year far too young, and this work is dedicated to her memory.
