The paper “ Соrроrаtе Gоvеrnаnсе аnd Sосiаl Rеsроnsibility in British American Tobacco” is an intriguing variant of the case study on management. The term “ corporate social responsibility” has been claimed to be a sugar-coated term used by Multinational Companies to foster their popularity and reputation in the disguise of their philanthropic acts. Corporate Social Responsibility roots can be traced to the 19th Century when large corporations engaged in philanthropic work which led to them gaining a great amount of popularity. This, therefore, led to actions by these Multinational Organizations being a “ noblesse oblige” .
However, with the emergence of civil rights, environmental movements, and global peace the notion of these corporations returning more to the society was developed. This paper aims to review the corporate social responsibility of British American Tobacco multinational company by reviewing the egoism moral theory and using the social and economic strategic issues to support it. IntroductionSince the formation of the British American Tobacco company when Imperial Tobacco of the United Kingdom and American Tobacco of the United States joined, it has faced a lot of social stigmas globally. This is attributed to the company controversies associated with pollution and its product posing an extremely harmful risk to human health.
Despite the efforts of this multinational corporation appearing to dissuade the youths from smoking it has led to the perception that it is portraying smoking as an “ Adults only” activity which also poses great health risk to the human lives(Muggli, 2007, pp. 195-202). In this case, British American Tobacco Company is claimed to have reached a point where it no longer denies that its product poses extreme health risks to the users and the non-users as well.
Despite the company’ s knowledge that Tobacco and its products are the leading cause of preventable deaths in the world today, the company went ahead and aligned itself with the evolving corporate by engaging in ‘ corporate social responsibility’ .
Ahenkora, K., Banahene, S. and Quartey, J. 2013. Societal Value Antecedent of Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Strategy. Journal of Management and Strategy, 4(4).
Anderson, S. 2009. Every document and picture tells a story: using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising. Tobacco Control, 15(3), pp.254-261.
Brown, B. 2007. Part IV: How Do Reputations Affect Corporate Performance?: Stock Market Valuation of Reputation for Corporate Social Performance. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1), pp.76-80.
Burton, B. 2010. Tobacco company prepares its first social responsibility report. BMJ, 323(7321), pp.1089-1089.
Chapman, S. 2009. Advocacy in action: extreme corporate makeover interruptus: denormalising tobacco industry corporate schmoozing. Tobacco Control, 13(4), pp.445-447.
Hirschhorn, N. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: hope or hype?. Tobacco Control, 13(4), pp.447-453.
Ibrahim, J. 2010. Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota. Tobacco Control, 13(3), pp.228-236.
Muggli, M. 2007. Tobacco industry strategies to undermine the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Tobacco Control, 12(2), pp.195-202.