Recently, I found it hypocritical to hear a doctor advocate for vaping as a better alternative to smoking, especially when the long-term health impacts of vaping are still uncertain/
The power of PR
Being endorsed as a "safer" option leads to an impression that it's harmless when it is substituting one harmful addiction for another.
Edward Bernays' work with the Torches of Freedom campaign in the 1920s brilliantly demonstrated the power of PR to change public perception—by positioning smoking as a symbol of women’s empowerment, it successfully normalised a habit with serious health impacts. This historical example is often referenced in discussions about the ethical responsibilities of PR, especially when representing products that could harm public health.
While the marketing of tobacco has been banned for over two decades in South Africa, the persistence of smokers proves that the ban of marketing efforts has not been a silver bullet. While smoking rates have declined slightly due to regulation and price there’s still significant social and cultural entrenchment, particularly in settings where smoking and alcohol consumption are paired.
The PR industry faces even greater scrutiny when it comes to navigating ethical boundaries. The moral hazards the PR industry faces are complex when it comes to representing organisations that contribute to environmental and health crises, like the tobacco, fossil fuel, and soft drink industries, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) campaigns often come across as attempts to "greenwash" harmful practices by diverting attention from the core issues.
The paradox lies in the relentless demand for these products and services. Despite knowing the harmful impacts of industries like mining, oil, and plastics on both the environment and public health, the global economy and society continue to consume them without considering the impact. This raises serious ethical questions for the PR and advertising industries. Should they continue promoting products and companies that contribute to global warming, environmental destruction, or public health crises?
Economy
A complete halt in advertising or PR support for these industries might seem like a moral option, but it's more complicated. Industries such as mining and manufacturing are intricately linked to the world’s economy, livelihoods, and everyday needs. Moving away from these sectors isn’t as simple as cutting off PR support, especially when these companies still wield enormous influence and resources.
Humanity’s reliance on harmful industries is deeply ingrained, and the addictions—whether to smoking, fossil fuels, or mass-produced goods—aren't easily broken. The parallels between smoking addiction and society’s broader dependence on environmentally destructive practices are striking. Despite heavy taxes, harmful messages, and stringent regulations, smokers persist, and in much the same way, the world continues to consume resources at unsustainable rates.
The Industrial Revolution, often celebrated for its progress and innovation, can indeed be seen as a double-edged sword. Our dependence on coal, oil, and industrial farming reflects a global addiction that seems almost impossible to ‘break’.
It’s easy to point fingers at marketing and PR for glamorising harmful products, but these industries reflect a deeper issue: the choices we, as a society, have made in pursuit of convenience, growth, and consumption. The development of science and technology, while improving living standards, has also accelerated the depletion of natural resources and environmental destruction. The very advancements that propelled humanity forward are now contributing to its potential downfall.
While it’s tempting to look for someone or something to blame, the reality is that the challenge lies in how deeply intertwined all these systems are. Marketing didn’t create the demand for polluting industries. Given the scale of the challenge the question is are we too far gone to break humankinds’ addiction to harmful products and industries?
