Government Regulation of Tobacco Products
Corporate and Social Responsibility BUS 250
1. Would you describe the orientation of Reynolds toward tobacco regulation as cooperative or at arm’s length? How about the attitude of Altria? What do you think explains the differences between the two companies’ positions? Reynolds was far from cooperative. They would definitely be considered at arm’s length and ready and willing to fight. Based off the information from the text, the company ran a series of television advertisements that showed the FDA as being overwhelmed and incapable of properly ensuring food and drug safety. While this was Reynolds view and what they did, Altria’s attitude would be considered cooperative. This is because they wanted a “seat at the table” as the bill was being discussed in Congress. (Lawrence & Weber, 2011) Altria knew that the law would most likely pass anyways, so they took a position that supported the Legislation. They wanted make sure cigarettes would not be outlawed entirely. What explains the difference between the two is that Reynolds was the worst offender when it came to advertising tobacco products to children. In 2008, six states sued the company for using cartoons in advertisement that dealt with cigarettes. This is part of why Reynolds took the stance they did.
2. What public policy inputs, goals, tools, and effects can be found in this discussion case? Public policy inputs are considered external forces that help to shape a government’s policy when making decisions and strategies to address a certain issue or problem. An example of this in this case would be the U.S Surgeon General and the medical reports that declared cigarettes as a health hazard. Another would include the six states that sued the Reynolds Company for violating the agreement about advertisements and cartoons. Public policy goals are usually very broad views that are set to help serve several people. The...