Divestment of tobacco industry funds

'Who undertook action: Various groups and individuals including Northeastern University Law School's Tobacco Divestment Project, Harvard's Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, CUNY Trustee Edith Everett, Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee at Johns Hopkins, et. al.'

Type: Academic organizations, tobacco control advocates

Size: small number of groups

Years: 1989-2001

Scope: Medical schools in U.S.

Targeted companies: All

Focus of action: Getting tobacco stocks out of medical school portfolios

Concurrent events: American Medical Association divested tobacco holdings in 1986 and urged others to follow; responsible investment shareholder movement gathered momentum; state attorneys general lawsuit identified industry as responsible for disease; South Africa apartheid divestment movement was a model for this action

Industry behavior change sought: None, medical schools pressured not to profit from tobacco

'''Smokers / smoking a focus? '''No

Main strategy: Presenting ethical arguments to decision makers

Supporting strategies: Publicizing successful divestment outcomes

'''Well-funded? '''No

Breadth of campaign: Advocates attempted to get university trustees to divest, mainly relying on moral arguments

Evidence of effectiveness: Mixed, 6 of 12 leading medical schools divested between 1989-2001

Industry response: Used personal networks to attempt to influence decision makers at universities; used implied threat of withholding grants; when divestment became reality, used influence to minimize publicity about it; industry very concerned that divestments by medical schools would amount to a censure of the industry and further isolation.

Resolution: Divestment movement waxed and waned.

Industry gains/losses: Industry was concerned about being delegitimated by divestment, but most often was able to minimize public awareness of successful divestment policies.

Community gains/losses: When public was aware of divestment, dialogue about dangers of tobacco was promoted and industry was further delegitimated; when institution was silent about having divested, opportunity for dialogue and ethical leadership was squandered.

'''Good for tobacco control? '''Yes, isolates industry as vector of tobacco disease and death

Observations: Divestment is an important tobacco control tool, and most often requires sympathetic allies in high places; medical schools are sensitive to charges from advocates about health concerns and hypocrisy; divestment must be publicly visible to have an impact

Links: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15504765?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Selling off or selling out? Medical schools and ethical leadership in tobacco stock divestment]

'Who undertook action: Various individuals including Calif. Health and Human Services Director Kenneth Kizer, Calif. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, North Dakota's Preventive Health Section Director Stephen McDonough, et. al.'

Type: Elected or appointed office holders and health officials

Size: Small, mostly individuals in different venues

Years: Beginning in 1990

Scope: States and municipalities in U.S.

Targeted companies: All

Focus of action: Getting tobacco stocks out of government portfolios

Concurrent events: Rise of socially responsible invester movement; increasing litigation against tobacco companies; increasing emphasis on tobacco industry delegitimization as tobacco control strategy

Industry behavior change sought: None, government funds pressured not to profit from holding tobacco stocks

'''Smokers / smoking a focus? '''No

Main strategy: Emphasizing ethical disconnect in profitting from a health-destroying product

Supporting strategies: Arguing that tobacco stocks are also fiscally risky in a climate of lawsuits against the industry

'''Well-funded? '''Yes, government officials advocated policy changes

Breadth of campaign: Advocates sparked dialogues about inappropriateness of tobacco holdings; some public officials took action

Evidence of effectiveness: Mixed, 7 states divested between 1996-2000; attempts in at least 18 other states failed

Industry response: Argued that fiscal responsibility trumped social concerns; devoted many resources to influencing divestment movement including gathering intelligence, organizing resources and shaping external environment including promoting laws banning the consideration of social concerns in managing government funds

Resolution: Mixed, most jurisdictions did not divest; some states passed laws making it difficult to ban tobacco stocks in government portfolios; some states currently reconsidering divestment decisions

Industry gains/losses: Industry held off divestment in most areas; divestment threatened share values and portrayed industry as illegitimate

Community gains/losses: Industry was further delegitimated when divestment achieved; media coverage fueled dialogue about tobacco-caused disease

'''Good for tobacco control? '''Yes, successful divestment policies isolated and delegitimized industry

Observations: Divestment of government funds is an important tobacco control tool and most often requires sympathetic allies in high places; grass roots advocates are limited in influencing this strategy; industry very concerned about being harmed by divestment

Links: Fiscal versus social responsibility: How Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate