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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2008.138115v1 99/3/452    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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McDaniel, P. A. Articles by Malone, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McDaniel, P. A. Articles by Malone, R. E. Related Collections Ethics Media Other Statistics/Evaluation/Research Tobacco Control Tobacco and Health

Patricia A. McDaniel, PhD and Ruth E. Malone, PhD, RN, FAAN

The authors are with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Patricia A. McDaniel, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3333 California St, Suite 455, San Francisco, CA 94118 (e-mail: patricia.mcdaniel{at}ucsf.edu).

Objectives. We explored what corporate "credibility" means to tobacco companies to determine why it matters to companies and what a lack of credibility means to them.

Methods. We collected documents from an online tobacco industry document archive and analyzed them with an interpretive approach.

Results. Tobacco companies conceptualized credibility not as being worthy of belief or confidence but as inspiring it. Thus, credibility was understood primarily as altering public perception of the industry. "Truth" was largely absent from tobacco industry conceptualizations of credibility, which were linked with "responsibility" and "reasonableness." However, industry research found that the public regarded credibility and responsibility differently, expecting these to entail truth telling, advertising reductions, less harmful products, apologies for deception, making amends, or exiting the tobacco business altogether. Overall, industry credibility-building projects failed repeatedly.

Conclusions. Public health discourse increasingly attends to the roles of corporations in promoting disease. Industries such as tobacco and alcohol have been identified as profiting from harmful products. Yet corporations' ability to continue business as usual requires sustaining an implicit societal assent to their activities that depends on corporate credibility. For public health to address corporate disease promotion effectively, undermining corporate credibility may be strategically important.