Is "sustainable responsible tobacco" a lie or a strategic possibility?

British American Tobacco not long ago published Value Shared: A Tobacco Company for the 21^st Century (see the full report here: Value Shared: Sustainability at BAT ).

 BAT nails its colours pretty firmly to the mast of sustainability, saying “we have sharpened our business strategy, putting a much greater emphasis on sustainability… Our three key areas … Harm reduction, sustainable agriculture and corporate behaviour”.

Now it’s very easy to be cynical about this …. What on earth might be a truly sustainable and responsible tobacco company? 

After all the recent US Surgeon General’s report on 50 years of evidence didn’t leave much wiggle room ( USSurgeon General Report Exec Summary ). So much so that the US Department of Health aspires to eradicate tobacco smoking within a generation.

But this does raise some more interesting issues doesn’t it? 

After all, is tobacco that much more objectionable than, say, some fast food offers or sugar laden processed food production? Or for that matter, is selling tobacco less responsible than missile making, palm oil production, logging? And what is so noble about oil majors, sugary drinks and industrial agriculture? 

One way or another, as consumers, investors, pension holders, most of us are tied up in here somehow ….

The fact is we are all part of a complex and inter-connected system and none of us in business are acting in a way that is genuinely sustainable yet.

There is a lot of exploring, learning and creating to do before we can claim to have created business that genuinely does more good than harm to us, to life, to the future.

So long as there is more to corporate efforts than mere greenwash so long as somewhere in there is a genuine sense of inquiry into responsibility, so long as there is learning, experimentation and a will to learn, then there is hope