Suppr超能文献

“大为何”:菲利普莫里斯公司寻找企业社会价值的失败尝试。

"The Big WHY": Philip Morris's failed search for corporate social value.

机构信息

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 2012 Oct;102(10):1942-50. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300619. Epub 2012 Aug 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We examined Philip Morris USA's exploration of corporate social responsibility practices and principles and its outcome.

METHODS

We analyzed archival internal tobacco industry documents, generated in 2000 to 2002, related to discussions of corporate social responsibility among a Corporate Responsibility Taskforce and senior management at Philip Morris.

RESULTS

In exploring corporate social responsibility, Philip Morris executives sought to identify the company's social value-its positive contribution to society. Struggling to find an answer, they considered dramatically changing the way the company marketed its products, apologizing for past actions, and committing the company to providing benefits for future generations. These ideas were eventually abandoned. Despite an initial call to distinguish between social and economic value, Philip Morris ultimately equated social value with providing shareholder returns.

CONCLUSIONS

When even tobacco executives struggle to define their company's social value, it signals an opening to advocate for endgame scenarios that would encourage supply-side changes appropriate to the scale of the tobacco disease epidemic and consistent with authentic social value.

摘要

目的

我们考察了美国菲利普莫里斯公司(Philip Morris USA)对企业社会责任实践和原则的探索及其结果。

方法

我们分析了菲利普莫里斯公司存档的内部烟草行业文件,这些文件是在 2000 年至 2002 年期间生成的,涉及企业社会责任特别工作组和菲利普莫里斯高层管理人员之间关于企业社会责任的讨论。

结果

在探索企业社会责任时,菲利普莫里斯高管们试图确定公司的社会价值——即对社会的积极贡献。在努力寻找答案的过程中,他们考虑了彻底改变公司产品营销方式、为过去的行为道歉以及承诺为子孙后代提供利益等想法。这些想法最终被放弃了。尽管最初有人呼吁区分社会价值和经济价值,但菲利普莫里斯最终将社会价值等同于为股东提供回报。

结论

即使烟草高管也难以定义他们公司的社会价值,这表明可以倡导采取最终阶段的方案,以鼓励供应方做出适当的改变,从而与烟草疾病流行的规模相匹配,并符合真正的社会价值。

相似文献

6
Making big tobacco give in: you lose, they win.让大烟草公司屈服:你输,他们赢。
Am J Public Health. 2006 Nov;96(11):2048-54. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.075119. Epub 2006 Oct 3.
7
Corporate philanthropy, lobbying, and public health policy.企业慈善、游说与公共卫生政策。
Am J Public Health. 2008 Dec;98(12):2123-33. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.128231. Epub 2008 Oct 15.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

5
The role of corporate credibility in legitimizing disease promotion.企业信誉在使疾病推广合法化方面的作用。
Am J Public Health. 2009 Mar;99(3):452-61. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.138115. Epub 2008 Dec 23.
6
Corporate philanthropy, lobbying, and public health policy.企业慈善、游说与公共卫生政策。
Am J Public Health. 2008 Dec;98(12):2123-33. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.128231. Epub 2008 Oct 15.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验