On was required about why corporate duty was required.140 One particular suggested that theOctober 2015, Vol 105, No. ten American Journal of Public HealthMcDaniel and Malone Peer Reviewed Tobacco Control eRESEARCH AND PRACTICEnotion of duty itself had not been completely integrated into PMC’s story:We’ve got to articulate where we’re going to go and why we are going there. Adding this to the story–not just that we are a fantastic business, extremely lucrative and with hugely talented people but that we are responsible.Clearly, refining the “new narrative” and attempting to assure its acceptance by personnel was an ongoing procedure. We discovered no more recent documents touching around the subject, and therefore it is 
unclear whether this process succeeded. An examination of PM USA’s existing Web web-site suggests that the new narrative (or no less than its key elements) remains in use. One example is, the web page indicates that responsibility is an integral part of your company’s mission, operationalized mainly by way of a vague description of stakeholder engagement and societal alignment:At PM USA, we method responsibility by understanding our stakeholders’ perspectives, aligning our business practices exactly where suitable and measuring and communicating our progress. Our approach to corporate duty helps us realize what stakeholders expect of the corporation plus the actions we can take to respond to these expectations.DISCUSSIONGood corporate stories can assist produce employee loyalty and boost corporate social responsibility applications by increasing the likelihood that workers will effectively promote a company’s claims of duty.1 As it sought to reposition itself, PMC communicated to employees a complicated corporate narrative that attempted to elide contradictions in between the “old” and “new” PMC stories. Some elements on the narrative had been patently false, PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21325470 like the claimed gradual “evolution” of PMC’s beliefs about the hazards of cigarette smoking, when PMC had recognized for 50 years that it caused illness and death,65 along with the claim that PMC’s troubles stemmed from responding to attacks with silence when it had, actually, NAMI-A site continually communicated its interests by lobbying policymakers, difficult regulatory efforts, and producing scientific “controversy” about its solution.6,10,142—144 A further aspect of PMC’s internal narrative–its reliance on YSP as evidence of its responsibility–appeared disingenuous, provided that the organization dismissed most of its employees’ ideas for efficient waysto minimize youth smoking. Thus, in building its new corporate narrative, PMC misled both its personal employees plus the public. The new narrative may not have fully convinced workers: in the 1st 3 years just after its introduction, some expressed confusion and skepticism, especially concerning “responsibility” as a key narrative element. But clearly it succeeded in forestalling public outcry and reassuring staff. PMC’s core tobacco enterprise remains fundamentally unchanged since the turbulence on the 1990s. Generating and aggressively advertising the cigarette, the single most deadly consumer product ever created, is taken for granted as a continuing facet of contemporary life. Moving toward a tobacco endgame,145 as named for by the recent US Surgeon General’s report on the overall health consequences of smoking,146 will need ongoing discursive efforts to disrupt the “new narratives” of PMC and other tobacco companies. A crucial disruptive element is actually a focus on industry deception. Th.