Tobacco companies in Australia and in many other parts of the world have suffered devastating blows to their public image in recent decades. In the wake of litigation cases during the 1990s, which revealed duplicitous industry conspiracies to mislead and reassure consumers about the effects of tobacco use,1 encourage children to start smoking,2 and undermine public health policy,3,4 the companies next embarked upon a multi-faceted public relations offensive designed to persuade the general public they have ‘turned over’ a ‘new corporate leaf’.
10.17.1 Public opinions about tobacco companies
Several studies have examined Australian attitudes to tobacco companies. One of the earliest was undertaken in Western Australia in 1988, a time when the tobacco companies were still publicly denying that smoking caused disease, were challenging the mounting evidence on secondhand smoke, and contending with an increased demand for tobacco control measures. This study found that on the basis of public credibility, 75% of respondents felt that tobacco industry representatives were ‘not at all believable’, rating them lower than used car salesmen (69%).5
Industry attempts to resuscitate its image appear not to have had much influence. South Australian research in the late 1990s found that 80% of respondents (and 74% of people who smoke) thought that tobacco companies mostly did not, or never, told the truth about smoking and health;6 and Victorian research undertaken in 2004 reported similar findings.7 International research in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia shows that overall, 80% of people who smoke do not believe that tobacco companies can be trusted to tell the truth.8 A 2016 survey in the UK found that fewer than one-fifth of respondents considered tobacco companies honest, ethical, and interested in reducing the harm caused by cigarettes.9 People who smoke also report overwhelmingly negative attitudes toward the industry.10 Distrusting, or holding negative attitudes towards, the tobacco industry is associated with an increased likelihood of cessation behaviours among people who smoke,8 and tobacco control advocates have on occasion in campaigns in some countries harnessed this as a way of encouraging quitting.
Support for regulation on tobacco industry
A high proportion of Australians support strong regulation of the tobacco industry. A 2004 survey of Australians who smoke showed that 69% of respondents felt that tobacco products should be more tightly regulated, and 49% agreed that tobacco companies should take responsibility for the harms caused by tobacco.11 The 2022-23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS)12 showed widespread support for further regulations to reduce the harms caused by tobacco: 81% of Australian supported banning the advertising of tobacco products on social media, 78% supported banning all additives in cigarette, about two-thirds supported further tax increases on tobacco to cover health-related treatment costs (68%) and health education (67%), and 65% supported raising the minimum age of tobacco sales to 21.12 In a 2026 national survey the Australian public’s overall perception was that there are too many shops selling tobacco (64%).13 Research in Europe has also found majority support for greater tobacco regulation.9,14
International research has shown that stronger tobacco industry denormalisation beliefs were associated with greater support for so-called ‘endgame’ policies such as total bans on tobacco sales and use.15
Public perception of smoking
An extension of tobacco industry disapproval is public perceptions of smoking itself, concern about which has declined somewhat in recent years.
In the 2022–23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey,12 only 17% of people over the age of 14 years (correctly) thought tobacco caused the most drug-related deaths in Australia, a statistically significant decline from 19% in 2019, and only 8% named tobacco as the drug most concerning to community (also a significant decline from earlier years).12 Of Australians aged 14 years or older, 16% of people approved of regular use of tobacco by adults. This included 18% of young Australians aged 14–17, and 19% of those aged 18–24.12
A survey of young people in England showed a similar level of approval of smoking by adults. A 2023 national survey of smoking and other drug use among secondary school students in England aged 11–15 years found that 17% of respondents considered it ‘OK’ to try smoking to see what it is like, a decline from 23% in 2021.16 When asked whether it was ‘OK’ to smoke once a week, 10% of students reported that this was acceptable. Attitudes varied markedly by age: younger students were less likely to view smoking as acceptable, with 4% of 11-year-olds reporting that it was ‘OK’ to try smoking, compared with 33% of 15-year-olds. Similarly, 5–6% of 11–12-year-olds considered it ‘OK’ to smoke once a week, compared with 17% of 15-year-olds.16
These figures suggest that—despite the fact that so few people approve of its use—there is still room to improve the general public’s knowledge about the relative harms associated with tobacco use.
For more information on young people’s intentions, attitudes and beliefs about smoking see Section 5.6.
10.17.2 ‘Denormalisation’ of tobacco use and the tobacco industry
Negative public attitudes to the tobacco industry are a marker of the ‘denormalisation’ of tobacco use evident in Australia since the mid 1980s. Denormalisation refers to the transition in status of smoking from a widely practised and socially acceptable behaviour to one which is increasingly typified as harmful, negatively viewed and to be avoided. The tobacco industry itself has also been increasingly denormalised, in line with its declining public image. Public recognition that the industry has for many decades lied to people who smoke and the wider community about the health effects of tobacco use has been heightened by high-profile legal cases and the public release of previously confidential industry documents. From the early 1990s, the industry was increasingly cast as the villain in popular culture, including inJohn Grisham’s novel The Runaway Jury and in movies including The Insider17 and Thank You for Smoking.
Tobacco industry denormalisation campaigns
Educating the public through media campaigns about deceptive tobacco industry practices has been shown to be successfully associated with a decrease in smoking among young people.18 The truth campaign is one example of a successful evidence-based national US antismoking campaign aimed at young people featuring fast-paced, hard-hitting ads that presented facts about the health effects of smoking as well as illustrations of the deceptive marketing practices of the tobacco industry.19 Tobacco industry denormalisation campaigns can be important in challenging the view that smoking as a personal choice, and instead reframing tobacco as an addictive product engineered by a deceptive industry.20 Greater awareness of tobacco industry tactics has been shown to be associated with more negative attitudes towards the tobacco industry, and is potentially helpful in countering tobacco industry disinformation.21
Examples of cultural denormalisation of smoking
There are many markers of the extensive denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry in Australia.17 These include prevailing attitudes in the community, as evidenced through an array of media reports, environmental and health campaigns and advertising for items such as insurance, accommodation and cessation aids. Increasing limits on where smoking may occur means that people who smoke are often segregated. Provision of smoking accessories such as cigarette lighters and ashtrays in cars is no longer standard in cars of Australian manufacture and some imported European vehicles; once-elegant tobacco packets are now covered by graphic health warnings. People advertising on dating sites or for housemates overwhelmingly specify a preference for people who do not smoke.17 Western Australia recently prohibited the inclusion of tobacco purchases in shopping reward schemes and loyalty programs.22
The tobacco industry’s reaction to negative public attitudes
The industry’s adoption of corporate social responsibility programs has been a major public relations campaign to regain corporate credibility (see Section 10.11).
Experimental research in 2026 has shown this strategy to be effective. Using a fictitious tobacco company and simulated corporate social responsibility videos, researchers demonstrated how successfully such messaging can mislead consumers. Specifically, exposure to corporate social responsibility content shaped viewers' perceptions of product harm and improved their attitudes towards tobacco companies, raising concerns about the potential to undermine tobacco control efforts.23 The study found that exposure to the corporate social responsibility video was significantly associated with more favourable views of the company, particularly among women. Viewers were also more likely to perceive the company's cigarettes as less harmful than competing products, with this effect being more pronounced among those who do not smoke. Notably, no significant effect was observed on overall support for tobacco control policies or intentions to use the products.23
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Francey N and Chapman S. 'Operation Berkshire' - the international tobacco companies' conspiracy. British Medical Journal, 2000; 321(7257):371–4. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/321/7257/371.pdf
2. Carter SM. From legitimate consumers to public relations pawns: the tobacco industry and young Australians. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):iii71-8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14645951
3. Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents. Tobacco company strategies to undermine tobacco control activities at the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO, 2000. Available from: https://www.slzt.cz/media/document/4988cba8bfb5b58f1bfedfeb33155258.pdf.
4. Trochim WMK, Stillman FA, Clark PI, and Schmitt CL. Development of a model of the tobacco industry's interference with tobacco control programmes. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12(2):140–7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/12/2/140
5. Daube M. West Australians are unlikely to believe statements made by the tobacco industry [Media release from the Office of the Director]. Perth: Health Promotion and Education Services Branch, 1988.
6. Wakefield M, Miller C, and Woodward S. Community perceptions about the tobacco industry and tobacco control funding. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1999; 23(3):240–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10388165/
7. Durkin SJ, Germain D, and Wakefield M. Adult's perceptions about whether tobacco companies tell the truth in relation to issues about smoking. Tobacco Control, 2005; 14(6):429–30. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/6/429-a
8. Hammond D, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Thrasher JF, and Borland R. Tobacco denormalization and industry beliefs among smokers from four countries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006; 31(3):225–32. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16905033
9. Moodie C, Sinclair L, Mackintosh AM, Power E, and Bauld L. How Tobacco Companies are Perceived Within the United Kingdom: An Online Panel. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179262
10. Johnson SE, Coleman BN, and Schmitt CL. It's Complicated: Examining Smokers' Relationships With Their Cigarette Brands. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2016. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27831717
11. Young D, Borland R, Siahpush M, Hastings G, Fong G, et al. Australian smokers support stronger regulatory controls on tobacco: findings from the ITC Four-Country Survey. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2007; 31(2):164–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17461008
12. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Data tables: National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022–2023 – Perceptions and policy support. Canberra: AIHW, 2024. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey/data.
13. ACOSH. Australians agree there are too many shops selling tobacco in Australia — and they want governments to lift the bar. Australian Council on Smoking & Health, 2026. Available from: https://acosh.org/australians-agree-there-are-too-many-shops-selling-tobacco-in-australia-and-they-want-governments-to-lift-the-bar/
14. Lykke M, Pisinger C, and Glumer C. Ready for a goodbye to tobacco? - Assessment of support for endgame strategies on smoking among adults in a Danish regional health survey. Preventive Medicine, 2015. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592689
15. Yao Y, Cheung YTD, Wu YS, Guo Z, Chan SK, et al. Association between tobacco industry denormalisation beliefs and support for tobacco endgame policies: a population-based study in Hong Kong. Tobacco Control, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38458757
16. Clinical Indicators and Outcomes team NE. Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People in England, 2023. NHS England, part of the Government Statistical Service 2024. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/smoking-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england/2023.
17. Chapman S and Freeman B. Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control, 2008; 17(1):25–31. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/17/1/25.pdf
18. Ling PM, Neilands TB, and Glantz SA. The Effect of Support for Action Against the Tobacco Industry on Smoking Among Young Adults. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97(8):1449-56. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2006.098806
19. Allen J, Vallone DM, Vargyas EJ, and Healton CG. The truth® Campaign: Using Countermarketing to Reduce Youth Smoking., Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2009. Available from: https://samples.jblearning.com/9780763753771/53771_CH10_FINAL.pdf.
20. Barbalich I, Gartner C, Edwards R, and Hoek J. New Zealand Smokers' Perceptions of Tobacco Endgame Measures: A Qualitative Analysis. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34498088
21. Patanavanich R and Glantz S. Awareness of tobacco industry tactics among tobacco control communities in Thailand and its association with attitudes towards tobacco industry and perceptions of e-cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2025; 34(5):602-8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38637148/
22. Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA). Available from: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_983_homepage.html.
23. Borges LC, Turci SRB, Perez S, Crosbie E, Forline L, et al. Association between tobacco company corporate social responsibility claims, support for the company and policies, and perceptions and intentions among Brazilians. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 2026; 42:e00111925. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/41711889
24. Alamar B and Glantz S. Effect of increased social unacceptability of cigarette smoking on reduction in cigarette consumption. American Journal of Public Health, 2006; 96(8):1359−63. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/1359
25. Evans-Polce RJ, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Schomerus G, and Evans-Lacko SE. The downside of tobacco control? Smoking and self-stigma: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 2015; 145:26–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26439764
26. Antin TM, Lipperman-Kreda S, and Hunt G. Tobacco Denormalization as a Public Health Strategy: Implications for Sexual and Gender Minorities. American Journal of Public Health, 2015:e1–e4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26469677
27. Schroeder SA. Stranded in the periphery - the increasing marginalization of smokers. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2008; 358(21):2284–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499574
28. Bell K, Salmon A, Bowers M, Bell J, and McCullough L. Smoking, stigma and tobacco denormalization: further reflections on the use of stigma as a public health tool. A commentary on Social Science & Medicine's Stigma, Prejudice, Discrimination and Health Special Issue (67: 3). Social Science & Medicine, 2010; 70(6):795–99. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20044187
29. Stuber J, Galea S, and Link BG. Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 67(3):420–30. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18486291