The emperor has no clothes: a synthesis of findings from the Transformative Research on the Alcohol industry, Policy and Science research programme

Corporate social responsibility, policy framing and strategic marketing: understanding the alcohol industry's use of social media in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Sub-Saharan Africa is important to the future of alcohol and global health because the alcohol market there is expanding rapidly in a relatively young population. This entails a corresponding contest about whether the policy measures adopted will be shaped by scientific evidence or by industry interference in alcohol policy. This study examines how alcohol industry actors use social media.

METHODS

Uganda was selected for study because of high levels of alcohol harm and recent alcohol policy debates. Data on the X (formerly Twitter) activity of the Ugandan companies of AB InBev and Diageo, who are the two main brewers, and the trade association including both, were collected, coded and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

X is used overwhelmingly by alcohol industry actors in Uganda to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) and alcohol policy framing content. There is little direct product marketing. The framing of policy problems and solutions, and of the actors involved in policymaking and CSR resembles that used elsewhere in the political strategies of the transnational alcohol corporations. Content which appears more emphasised in Uganda includes material on farmers, illicit trade and contribution to the economy. As elsewhere, it avoids giving attention to the policy measures which would make a difference to the levels of alcohol harms endured by Uganda. Rhetorically, X is thus used to create a parallel universe, in which the actual harms and what is known about how to reduce them are conspicuous by their absence.

CONCLUSIONS

The alcohol industry presents itself as indispensable to Uganda's future and appears to have developed relationships with politicians, partnerships with government, and built a coalition with farmers. This means the alcohol industry may be well positioned to oppose public health policy measures, even though their arguments lack substance and are at odds with the evidence.

Continuities and change in alcohol policy at the global level: a documentary analysis of the 2010 Global Strategy for Reducing the Harmful Use of Alcohol and the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-2030

BACKGROUND

There are only two major statements which define alcohol policy development at the global level. There has not been any comparative analysis of the details of these key texts, published in 2010 and 2022 respectively, including how far they constitute similar or evolving approaches to alcohol harm.

METHODS

Preparatory data collection involved examination of documents associated with the final policy statements. A thematic analysis across the two policy documents was performed to generate understanding of continuity and change based on comparative study. Study findings are interpreted in the contexts of the evolving conceptual and empirical literatures.

RESULTS

Both documents exhibit shared guiding principles and identify similar governance challenges, albeit with varying priority levels. There is more emphasis on the high-impact interventions on price, availability and marketing in 2022, and more stringent targets have been set for 2030 in declaring alcohol as a public health priority therein, reflecting the action-oriented nature of the Plan. The identified roles of policy actors have largely remained unchanged, albeit with greater specificity in the more recent statement, appropriately so because it is concerned with implementation. The major exception, and the key difference in the documents, regards the alcohol industry, which is perceived primarily as a threat to public health in 2022 due to commercial activities harmful to health and because policy interference has slowed progress.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 potentially marks a pivotal moment in global alcohol policy development, though it is unclear how fully it may be implemented. Perhaps, the key advances lie in advancing the ambitions of alcohol policy and clearly identifying that the alcohol industry should not be seen as any kind of partner in public health policymaking, which will permit progress to the extent that this influences what actually happens in alcohol policy at the national level.

Brief interventions 2.0: a new agenda for alcohol policy, practice and research

BACKGROUND

Alcohol problems are increasing across the world and becoming more complex. Limitations to international evidence and practice mean that the screening and brief intervention paradigm forged in the 1980s is no longer fit for the purpose of informing how conversations about alcohol should take place in healthcare and other services. A new paradigm for brief interventions has been called for. BRIEF INTERVENTIONS 2.0: We must start with a re-appraisal of the roles of alcohol in society now and the damage it does to individual and population health. Industry marketing and older unresolved ideas about alcohol continue to impede honest and thoughtful conversations and perpetuate stigma, stereotypes, and outright fictions. This makes it harder to think about and talk about how alcohol affects health, well-being, and other aspects of life, and how we as a society should respond. To progress, brief interventions should not be restricted only to the self-regulation of one's own drinking. Content can be orientated to the properties of the drug itself and the overlooked problems it causes, the policy issues and the politics of a powerful globalised industry. This entails challenging and reframing stigmatising notions of alcohol problems, and incorporating wider alcohol policy measures and issues that are relevant to how people think about their own and others' drinking. We draw on recent empirical work to examine the implications of this agenda for practitioners and for changing the public conversation on alcohol.

CONCLUSION

Against a backdrop of continued financial pressures on health service delivery, this analysis provokes debate and invites new thinking on alcohol. We suggest that the case for advancing brief interventions version 2.0 is both compelling and urgent.

Are we moving into a new era for alcohol policy globally? An analysis of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30

The Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 (GAAP) represents an important milestone in policy implementation at the global level on alcohol and health. There has, however, been little attention paid to the GAAP in the research literature. With a focus on the alcohol industry, this analysis examines the content of, and prospects for, the GAAP. It is clear why stronger action on alcohol and health is needed. The health harming nature of alcohol and policy interference by industry are now clearly understood. The alcohol industry is now thus regarded primarily as a key part of the problem. The GAAP calls for action in six areas with specific roles for public health actors, and invites powerful industry actors to desist from harmful activities, within each area. The broad outline of what is expected of the alcohol industry is now clear. It remains unclear, however, how far countries will continue to face formidable opposition from the major alcohol companies and their surrogates, in adopting and implementing evidence-based measures. Governments must now act at speed, and it is unclear if the targets set for 2030 will be met. If this long-running public health policy failure continues, this will have dire consequences for low and middle income countries where the alcohol market is expanding. Stronger actions may also be needed.

Generating political priority for alcohol policy reform: A framework to guide advocacy and research

INTRODUCTION

While effective policies exist to reduce alcohol-related harm, political will to enact them is low in many jurisdictions. We aimed to identify key barriers and strategies for strengthening political priority for alcohol policy reform.

METHODS

A framework synthesis was conducted, incorporating relevant theory, key informant interviews (n = 37) and a scoping review. Thematic analysis informed the development of a framework for understanding and influencing political priority for alcohol policy.

RESULTS

Twelve barriers and 14 strategies were identified at multiple levels (global, national and local). Major barriers included neoliberal or free trade ideology, the globalised alcohol industry, limited advocate capacity and the normalisation of alcohol harms. Strategies fell into two categories: sector-specific and system change initiatives. Sector-specific strategies primarily focus on influencing policymakers and mobilising civil society. Examples include developing a clear, unified solution, coalition building and effective framing. System change initiatives target structural change to reduce the power imbalance between industry and civil society, such as restricting industry involvement in policymaking and securing sustainable funding for advocacy. A key example is establishing an international treaty, similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to support domestic policymaking.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide a framework for understanding and advancing political priority for alcohol policy. The framework highlights that progress can be achieved at various levels and through diverse groups of actors. The importance of upstream drivers of policymaking was a key finding, presenting challenges for time-poor advocates, but offering potential facilitation through effective global leadership.

Constructing public-private partnerships to undermine the public interest: critical discourse analysis of Working Together published by the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking

BACKGROUND

The global burden of alcohol harm has increased and is forecast to grow further without effective policy implementation. Public-private partnerships aiming to address global health, and other societal challenges, are a burgeoning feature of neoliberal governance. Rhetorically distancing themselves from tobacco, the major alcohol companies are committed to tackling 'harmful drinking' and have created a distinct type of public relations organization for this purpose. The activities of such organizations are increasingly recognized as an impediment to the implementation of policies to reduce alcohol harm, including in low- and middle-income countries where markets are expanding.

METHODS

The approach of critical discourse analysis is used to examine the discursive tactics and strategies used in Working Together; a 'toolkit' published by the key global level alcohol industry public relations organization, the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD). This study considers how it works discursively to set the terms of, and overcome skepticism about partnerships, to define aims and position various actors by constructing their roles. The construction of prospective partners provides insights into the alcohol industry itself.

RESULTS

The toolkit operates as an ideological resource for forming public-private partnerships across the world based on the accumulated know-how of the major companies through IARD. This allows the largest alcohol companies to exercise leadership of the industry, while remaining off-stage. The toolkit relies on a form of rhetorical work which creates distance from obvious corporate interests and the harms caused to population health and society. This is accomplished by working against evidence-informed population level approaches, and thus avoiding policies that will make any significant difference to overall alcohol harm. Unspecific "complexity" affords opportunity for preferred types of "actions", and "partnership" provides opportunity to gain credibility by association, further minimizing the likelihood of any material harm being reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The toolkit is designed to not only legitimate the inclusion of alcohol industry actors as initiating 'partners', but also assigns them roles as managers of a set of carefully constructed relationships. This vision of public-private partnership reproduces the hegemonic narrative that has successfully blocked policy advances for decades and led to growing alcohol harm globally.

Alcohol policy framing in South Africa during the early stages of COVID-19: using extraordinary times to make an argument for a new normal

INTRODUCTION

Public health and alcohol industry actors compete to frame alcohol policy problems and solutions. Little is known about how sudden shifts in the political context provide moments for policy actors to re-frame alcohol-related issues. South Africa's temporary bans on alcohol sales during the COVID-19 pandemic offered an opportunity to study this phenomenon.

METHODS

We identified Professor Charles Parry from the South African Medical Research Council as a key policy actor. Parry uses a Twitter account primarily to comment on alcohol-related issues in South Africa. We harvested his tweets posted from March 18 to August 31, 2020, coinciding with the first two alcohol sales bans. We conducted a thematic analysis of the tweets to understand how Parry framed alcohol policy evidence and issues during these 'extraordinary times.'

RESULTS

Parry underlined the extent of alcohol-related harm during 'normal times' with scientific evidence and contested industry actors' efforts to re-frame relevant evidence in a coherent and well-constructed argument. Parry used the temporary sales restrictions to highlight the magnitude of the health and social harms resulting from alcohol consumption, particularly trauma, rather than the COVID-19 transmission risks. Parry portrayed the sales ban as a policy learning opportunity (or 'experiment') for South Africa and beyond.

CONCLUSIONS

Crisis conditions can provide new openings for public health (and industry) actors to make salient particular features of alcohol and alcohol policy evidence.

The international center for alcohol policies (ICAP) book series: a key resource globally for alcohol industry political strategies

This study examines the functions and purposes of the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP) book series, published by Routledge between 1998 and 2010. The books were authored by invited academics, ICAP staffers, and alcohol industry representatives.The key data source for this paper was the framing material - forewords, introductions, conclusions - of the books. A thematic analysis positioned the contents with regard to ongoing alcohol research and public health policy issues.This was a project to 'shift the paradigm'. ICAP frames alcohol policy choices in ways which direct policy attention to sub-groups rather than the population level. Population-level approaches are caricatured as 'ideological'. The concept of 'balance' is prominent and is employed in multiple ways. Business interests are elided and industry involvement in policy making is promoted on scientific grounds. The intellectual programme is lent credibility by leading scientists and the imprimatur of an academic publisher.While this attempt to change the paradigm in alcohol science has failed, ineffective alcohol policies remain common, uninformed by scientific evidence on how harms at the societal level may be reduced. The ICAP book series continues to serve its function as a resource to support the status quo in respect of alcohol policy.

Social disparities in alcohol's harm to others: evidence from 32 European countries

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use can cause harm not only to the person who consumes it but also to others. Prior research has found that these alcohol-attributable harms to others differ across socioeconomic groups, though several findings have been contradictory. The aim of this contribution was to study the role of individual-level and population-level income inequalities in alcohol's harm to others among women and men.

METHODS

Logistic regression analysis of cross-sectional survey data from 2021, covering 39,629 respondents from 32 European countries. Harms from others' drinking were defined as experiences of physical harm, involvement in a serious argument, or involvement in a traffic accident, due to another person's drinking, within the past year. We examined the association of individual-level income and country-specific income inequality (Gini index) with harms from a known person's or a stranger's drinking, adjusting for the respondent's age, daily drinking levels, and at least monthly risky single-occasion drinking.

RESULTS

At the individual level, people with lower incomes had 21% to 47% increased odds of reporting harms from a known person's drinking (women and men) or stranger's drinking (men only) than their same-gender counterparts in the highest income quintile. At the national level, countries with higher income inequality showed increased risks of harms from a known person's drinking among women (OR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 - 1.14), while among men the risk of harm from strangers' drinking decreased with higher income inequality (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.92). These associations with income inequality were observed among respondents from all but the lowest income groups.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol can cause harm to others, with women and people with low incomes being disproportionally exposed to these harms. Alcohol control policies targeting high consumption levels, especially among men, as well as upstream policies to reduce inequalities, are needed to lower the health burden of alcohol beyond those who consume it.