How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review.

Emily Savell,Anna B Gilmore,Gary Fooks

doi:10.1111/add.13048

Abstract

AimTo systematically review, using a qualitative, narrative synthesis approach, papers examining alcohol industry efforts to influence alcohol marketing policy, and compare with those used by the tobacco industry.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted between April and July 2011, and updated in March 2013. Papers were included if they: made reference to alcohol industry efforts to influence (a) policy debates concerning marketing regulations, (b) new specific marketing policies or (c) broad alcohol policy which included marketing regulations; were written in English; and concerned the period 1990–2013. Alcohol industry political activity was categorized into strategies/tactics and frames/arguments. Data extraction was undertaken by the lead author and 100% of the papers were fully second‐reviewed. Seventeen papers met the review criteria.ResultsFive main political strategies and five main frames were identified. The alcohol industry argues against marketing regulation by emphasizing industry responsibility and the effectiveness of self‐regulation, questioning the effectiveness of statutory regulation and by focusing on individual responsibility. Arguments relating to industry responsibility are often reinforced through corporate social responsibility activities. The industry primarily conveys its arguments through manipulating the evidence base and by promoting ineffective voluntary codes and non‐regulatory initiatives.ConclusionsThe alcohol industry's political activity is more varied than existing models of corporate political activity suggest. The industry's opposition to marketing regulation centres on claims that the industry is responsible and that self regulation is effective. There are considerable commonalities between tobacco and alcohol industry political activity, with differences due potentially to differences in policy contexts and perceived industry legitimacy.

Highlights

Understanding how large corporations seek to shape health policy has been considerably advanced by the release of millions of internal tobacco industry (TI) documents following litigation in the USA[24]
This review identified 20 separate tactics falling under five main strategies (Table 2) which we have termed as follows: ‘Information’, ‘Constituency building’, ‘Policy substitution, development and implementation’
We identified 13 common arguments used by both industries, along with four arguments unique to the TI, and seven, which had only been used by the alcohol industry (AI)

Summary

Introduction

Understanding how large corporations seek to shape health policy has been considerably advanced by the release of millions of internal tobacco industry (TI) documents following litigation in the USA[24]. The WHO’s approach to the AI is more ambiguous; highlighting the importance of protecting the development of health policies from “commercial or vested interests”[12] on the one hand, whilst allowing AI participation[13] on the other. This is despite research illustrating parallels between the political activities of ‘Big Tobacco’ and ‘Big Booze’[14]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion