Who Determines Who Gets to be Heard?

For some people the world can be simply divided up into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and if you or your organization is considered ‘bad’ then there can be no discussion or debate; these organizations are simply deplatformed. This is not how problems get solved. Those who shout shouldn’t get to be the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable.??

Last week The Economist Group’s events division decided it would no longer work with tobacco firms, including Philip Morris International (PMI), the company I lead. Our long association was considered unacceptable by some and led to the boycotting of several Economist Impact events with which we had no presence or association. Under pressure, The Economist Group pulled the plug.?

We partnered with The Economist because it’s a globally renowned and respected media title—one I read regularly. The publication consistently maintained its editorial independence throughout the 10 years we worked together. The nature of the partnership saw us sponsor events and content on a variety of subjects. None of these were about promoting our products. We engaged in the partnership to advance discussion on a broad range of important societal topics—including the radical transformation of our company—and always with full transparency about our relationship.??

We entered into this affiliation because one of the main challenges we face at PMI is illogical and unreasonable opposition to our profound business transformation—for no reason other than that our legacy is in cigarettes.??

This opposition is perplexing because PMI is today a transformed company and well on its way to ending cigarette sales for good. Ten years ago, nearly all our revenue came from cigarettes; as of July this year, we achieved nearly 40% total net revenues from smoke-free alternatives—products that are scientifically substantiated as better alternatives for adults who’d otherwise continue to smoke—and our aspiration is for more than two-thirds of our net revenues to derive from products that aren’t cigarettes by 2030. By any measure, this is a remarkable and unprecedented transformation.?

Our opponents want cigarette sales to end and so do we, but our approaches differ. They say that a firm that sells cigarettes cannot be allowed to engage in any other form of business and, if it does, it can’t talk about it or participate in a dialogue with society. But how can we move away from cigarettes if we cannot move into other business areas where we have expertise? This is akin to saying an oil firm shouldn’t develop a wind turbine or a car company an electric car. Or that they should move out of these perfectly legal legacy businesses before they can do anything else. This is not how the real world works.??

I would urge our critics to rethink their opposition to our transformation. If they want us to stop selling cigarettes, they should encourage us to transform even faster. One thing is certain: Whether they choose to support us or not, we will continue to pursue our mission—since 2016—of solving the problem of smoking.?

I am not looking for sympathy but those who care about open debate and the free exchange of ideas, should be concerned about these attempts to censor discussion, critical thinking, and choice. The list of ‘unacceptable’ organizations and companies—oil, tobacco, and big tech amongst them—is growing. Cancelling these institutions from platforms like Economist Impact is silencing one side of a debate rather than promoting fruitful dialogue. The world is complicated, conflicted, and challenged, and the loudest voices shouldn’t get to be the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable.?

In the meantime, I will continue to move our business forward, away from cigarettes and toward a smoke-free future. I’ll also continue to purchase The Economist.??

Assuming they’ll take my money.?

#debate #questions #dialogue #transformation??