HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2007.128231v1 98/12/2123    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tesler, L. E. Articles by Malone, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tesler, L. E. Articles by Malone, R. E. Related Collections Ethics Health Policy Tobacco Control

Laura E. Tesler, PhD and Ruth E. Malone, PhD, RN, FAAN

Laura E. Tesler is with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco. Ruth E. Malone is with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ruth E. Malone, PhD, RN, FAAN, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0612, San Francisco, CA 94143-0612 (e-mail: ruth.malone{at}ucsf.edu).

To counter negative publicity about the tobacco industry, Philip Morris has widely publicized its philanthropy initiatives. Although corporate philanthropy is primarily a public relations tool, contributions may be viewed as offsetting the harms caused by corporate products and practices. That such donations themselves have harmful consequences has been little considered.

Drawing on internal company documents, we explored the philanthropy undertaken as part of Philip Morris's PM21 image makeover. Philip Morris explicitly linked philanthropy to government affairs and used contributions as a lobbying tool against public health policies. Through advertising, covertly solicited media coverage, and contributions to legislators’ pet causes, Philip Morris improved its image among key voter constituencies, influenced public officials, and divided the public health field as grantees were converted to stakeholders.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. C. Friedman Tobacco industry use of corporate social responsibility tactics as a sword and a shield on secondhand smoke issues. J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 2009; 37(4): 819 - 827. [PDF]

				G. Hastings and J. Liberman Tobacco corporate social responsibility and fairy godmothers: the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control slays a modern myth Tob. Control, April 1, 2009; 18(2): 73 - 74. [Full Text] [PDF]