That’s a headline I never thought I would write. However, someone recently drew my attention to the existence of a body called “Clean Streets CIC”.
Apparently a very large proportion of all litter found on the streets of the UK in some way or another can be linked to smoking. 66% according to the Clean Streets web site. That seems improbably large but it is certainly true cigarette ends, mangled cigarette packets and discarded vapes (which count for these purposes) are a common sight on our pavements, in our parks and in gutters.
Clean Streets is determined to do something about it.
The funders of the initiative are the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA) aka Big Tobacco.
Two years ago the TMA decided to fund a three-year long initiative to address the litter problem their products were causing. Short of them deciding to wind up their businesses altogether or make the project permanent I guess you would have to say this is unequivocally a “good thing”. They acknowledge, or at any rate do not challenge, the World Health Organization’s ban on tobacco sponsorship and assure us the legal advice they have received confirms nobody accepting a grant under the scheme would be contravening the terms of the ban.
Cynics, but not just cynics, will nevertheless look for the ulterior, the undisclosed motive, and assume this was Big Tobacco “simply” looking for a way of softening its image, grabbing a few halos, smoothing a pathway to civic honours for Directors. Whatever.
However, if that was all there was to it the TMA has gone about it in a very strange way. Here are some extracts from the Governance rules published on the CIC web site.
“TMA members can make no claims of association or have any rights to publicise its involvement (with the initiative) aside from referencing its financial contribution to meet its mandatory regulatory reporting requirements in its annual accounts and in acknowledging this involvement when approached by a third party.”
Unsurprisingly there is also this
“Campaigns delivered by those in receipt of grant funding from the CIC must not in any way normalise or grant agreement to promote smoking or tobacco products…”
And then there are provisions which require adherence
“to the principles of transparency, particularly …..ensuring that any interaction with the tobacco industry on matters related to tobacco control is accountable and transparent.”
We could speculate endlessly about why the TMA members chose to do what they did but all I can say is the world would be a better place if other businesses which inhabit or hover on or around the edges of social policy or ethical controversy adopted similar self-denying ordinances.
I’m thinking in particular about those companies and businesses which inhabit or hover around the edges of online child safety concerns.
If such companies also refused to bask in the pr benefits which their money can buy there might be a chance people would at least consider the possibility that when they chose to fund, sponsor, give a grant to or initiate research into something ostensibly intended to enlarge the public interest, improve child protection or our understanding of it, that that was all there was to it.
Virtue is meant to be its own reward. It shouldn’t be for sale.
Neither should it act as camoflague for stasis, a deliberate ploy to delay or avoid regulation.
If all that sounds way too unworldly then let me at least just say I believe certain kinds of business have higher hurdles to jump over than others do. Tobacco is definitely one of them both generally and also specifically in the context of children (because many children seem to be interested in tobacco products).
Not all industries are equal, even if everything they do intentionally is legal.
Desiderata 