The Perils of Partnership: Interactions Between Public Health England, Drinkaware, and the Portman Group Surrounding the Drink Free Days Campaign

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Global Health Policy Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

2 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

3 Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

4 UK PRP SPECTRUM Consortium, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Abstract

 Background
There is growing evidence that the alcohol industry seeks to obstruct public health policies that might affect future alcohol sales. In parallel, the alcohol industry funds organisations that engage in “responsible drinking” campaigns. Evidence is growing that the content and delivery of such campaigns serves industry, rather than public health interests, yet these organizations continue to be the subject of partnerships with government health departments. This study aimed to examine the nature and potential impacts of such partnerships by analysing the practices of the alcohol industry-funded charity Drinkaware during the establishment of the Drink Free Days campaign.
 
Methods
A case study based on an inductive analysis of documents revealed by freedom of information (FoI) request regarding communications between Drinkaware, Public Health England (PHE), and the Portman Group, in the years running up to, and during, the Drink Free Days campaign, a partnership between alcohol industry-funded charity Drinkware, and PHE.
 
Results
This study reveals a range of less visible, system-level effects of such partnerships for government departments and civil society. The tensions observed, as exhibited by discrepancies between internal and external communications, the emphasis on managing and mitigating the perception of negative consequences, and the links to wider alcohol industry initiatives and bodies, suggest the need for wider considerations of organizational conflicts of interest, and of possible indirect, harmful consequences to policy-making. These include the marginalization of other civil society voices, the displacing of more effective policy options, and strategic alignment with other industry lobbying activities.
 
Conclusion
The findings have implications for how public health practitioners and health organisations might better weigh the potential trade-offs of partnership in the context of health promotion campaigns. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Babor TF, Caetano R, Casswell S, et al. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy. Oxford University Press; 2010. doi:1093/acprof:oso/9780199551149.001.0001
  2. Mitchell G, McCambridge J. Interactions between the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the alcohol industry: evidence from email correspondence 2013-2020. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2023;84(1):11-26. doi:15288/jsad.22-00184
  3. Petticrew M, Maani Hessari N, Knai C, Weiderpass E. How alcohol industry organisations mislead the public about alcohol and cancer. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(3):293-303. doi:1111/dar.12596
  4. Lim AW, van Schalkwyk MC, Maani Hessari N, Petticrew MP. Pregnancy, fertility, breastfeeding, and alcohol consumption: an analysis of framing and completeness of information disseminated by alcohol industry-funded organizations. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2019;80(5):524-533. doi:15288/jsad.2019.80.524
  5. Peake L, van Schalkwyk MC, Maani N, Petticrew M. Analysis of the accuracy and completeness of cardiovascular health information on alcohol industry-funded websites. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(6):1197-1204. doi:1093/eurpub/ckab135
  6. Maani Hessari N, van Schalkwyk MC, Thomas S, Petticrew M. Alcohol industry CSR organisations: what can their twitter activity tell us about their independence and their priorities? A comparative analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5):892. doi:3390/ijerph16050892
  7. Pettigrew S, Biagioni N, Daube M, Stafford J, Jones SC, Chikritzhs T. Reverse engineering a 'responsible drinking' campaign to assess strategic intent. Addiction. 2016;111(6):1107-1113. doi:1111/add.13296
  8. Miller PG, de Groot F, McKenzie S, Droste N. Vested interests in addiction research and policy. Alcohol industry use of social aspect public relations organizations against preventative health measures. Addiction. 2011;106(9):1560-1567. doi:1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03499.x
  9. Maani Hessari N, Petticrew M. What does the alcohol industry mean by 'responsible drinking'? A comparative analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2018;40(1):90-97. doi:1093/pubmed/fdx040
  10. Petticrew M, Maani Hessari N, Pettigrew L, Rutter H, van Schalkwyk MC. Dark nudges and sludge in big alcohol: behavioral economics, cognitive biases, and alcohol industry corporate social responsibility. Milbank Q. 2020;98(4):1290-1328. doi:1111/1468-0009.12475
  11. Knai C, Petticrew M, Mays N, et al. Systems thinking as a framework for analyzing commercial determinants of health. Milbank Q. 2018;96(3):472-498. doi:1111/1468-0009.12339
  12. Knai C, Petticrew M, Capewell S, et al. The case for developing a cohesive systems approach to research across unhealthy commodity industries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2):e003543. doi:1136/bmjgh-2020-003543
  13. Drinkaware Home. 2023. https://www.drinkaware.co.uk. Accessed August 9, 2023.
  14. Hawkins B, Durrance-Bagale A, Walls H. Co-regulation and alcohol industry political strategy: a case study of the Public Health England-Drinkaware Drink Free Days Campaign. Soc Sci Med. 2021;285:114175. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2021.114175
  15. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Miller P, Hawkins B, Hastings G. Be aware of drinkaware. Addiction. 2014;109(4):519-524. doi:1111/add.12356
  16. Portman Group. About the Portman Group. 2023. https://www.portmangroup.org.uk/#:~:text=The%20Portman%20Group%20is%20the,and%20promotion%20in%20the%20UK. Accessed November 24, 2023.
  17. Portman Group. Portman Group written evidence submission to Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Portman Group;
  18. Portman Group. Behind the Headlines: Alcohol-Related Hospital Admissions. Portman Group;
  19. Portman Group. Portman Group's Response to Chief Medical Officers' Alcohol Guidelines. Portman Group; 2016.
  20. Portman Group. Trends in Alcohol. 2015. http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/research/trends-in-alcohol. Accessed July 14, 2016.
  21. Portman Group. Portman Group Statement on Latest HSCIC Statistics. Portman Group;
  22. Portman Group. Portman Group Response to Scottish Government MUP Consultation. 2022. https://portmangroup21.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Portman-Group-response-to-Scottish-MUP-consultation-20-October-2022.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2022.
  23. Walls H, Hawkins B, Durrance-Bagale A. Local government stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy and conflict of interest: the alcohol industry and the "Drink Free Days" campaign in England. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(8):1505-1513. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.59
  24. Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Vol 5. SAGE Publications; 2009.
  25. Mendly-Zambo Z, Raphael D, Taman A. Take the money and run: how food banks became complicit with Walmart Canada’s hunger producing employment practices. Crit Public Health. 2023;33(1):60-71. doi:1080/09581596.2021.1955828
  26. Harvey L. Critical social research: re-examining quality. Qual High Educ. 2022;28(2):145-152. doi:1080/13538322.2022.2037762
  27. Glenna L, Bruce A. Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct. Res Policy. 2021;50(7):104290. doi:1016/j.respol.2021.104290
  28. Maani Hessari N, Ruskin G, Mc KM, Stuckler D. Public meets private: conversations between Coca-Cola and the CDC. Milbank Q. 2019;97(1):74-90. doi:1111/1468-0009.12368
  29. Peeters S, Gilmore AB. Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials. PLoS Med. 2013;10(9):e1001506. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001506
  30. Gilmore AB, Gallagher AWA, Rowell A. Tobacco industry's elaborate attempts to control a global track and trace system and fundamentally undermine the Illicit Trade Protocol. Tob Control. 2019;28(2):127-140. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054191
  31. Forster N. The analysis of company documentation. In: Documentary Research. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006:83-106.
  32. Burton R, Henn C, Lavoie D, et al. A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies: an English perspective. Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1558-1580. doi:1016/s0140-6736(16)32420-5
  33. Moberly T. Public health experts split over deal with industry funded charity. BMJ. 2018;362:k3942. doi:1136/bmj.k3942
  34. Jones SC, Hall S, Kypri K. Should I drink responsibly, safely or properly? Confusing messages about reducing alcohol-related harm. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184705. doi:1371/journal.pone.0184705
  35. Smith SW, Atkin CK, Roznowski J. Are "drink responsibly" alcohol campaigns strategically ambiguous? Health Commun. 2006;20(1):1-11. doi:1207/s15327027hc2001_1
  36. Maani Hessari N, van Schalkwyk MC, Filippidis FT, Knai C, Petticrew M. Manufacturing doubt: Assessing the effects of independent vs industry-sponsored messaging about the harms of fossil fuels, smoking, alcohol, and sugar sweetened beverages. SSM Popul Health. 2022;17:101009. doi:1016/j.ssmph.2021.101009
  37. Public Health England. Drink Free Days Campaign 2018: Executive Summary. Public Health England; 2019.
  38. Ulucanlar S, Lauber K, Fabbri A, et al. Corporate political activity: taxonomies and model of corporate influence on public policy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12(1):7292. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7292
  39. Babor TF, Robaina K, Brown K, et al. Is the alcohol industry doing well by 'doing good'? Findings from a content analysis of the alcohol industry's actions to reduce harmful drinking. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e024325. doi:1136/bmjopen-2018-024325
  40. Babor TF, Robaina K. Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry's corporate social responsibility activities. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(2):206-214. doi:2105/ajph.2012.300847
  41. Pantani D, Sparks R, Sanchez ZM, Pinsky I. 'Responsible drinking' programs and the alcohol industry in Brazil: killing two birds with one stone? Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(8):1387-1391. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.062
  42. Petticrew M, Douglas N, D'Souza P, et al. Community Alcohol Partnerships with the alcohol industry: what is their purpose and are they effective in reducing alcohol harms? J Public Health (Oxf). 2018;40(1):16-31. doi:1093/pubmed/fdw139
  43. Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, Eastmure E, Mays N. Are the Public Health Responsibility Deal alcohol pledges likely to improve public health? An evidence synthesis. Addiction. 2015;110(8):1232-1246. doi:1111/add.12855
  44. Greenhalgh S. Soda industry influence on obesity science and policy in China. J Public Health Policy. 2019;40(1):5-16. doi:1057/s41271-018-00158-x
  45. McDaniel PA, Smith EA, Malone RE. Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it. Tob Control. 2006;15(3):215-223. doi:1136/tc.2005.014977
  46. Landman A, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(1):45-58. doi:2105/ajph.2007.130740
  47. Knai C, Petticrew M, Capewell S, et al. The case for developing a cohesive systems approach to research across unhealthy commodity industries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2):e003543. doi:1136/bmjgh-2020-003543
  48. Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1194-1213. doi:1016/s0140-6736(23)00013-2
  49. Mialon M, Ho M, Carriedo A, Ruskin G, Crosbie E. Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity. Global Health. 2021;17(1):37. doi:1186/s12992-021-00689-1
  50. Mitchell G, McCambridge J. The ubiquitous experience of alcohol industry involvement in science: findings from a qualitative interview study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022;83(2):260-266.
  51. Mitchell G, McCambridge J. The 'snowball effect': short and long-term consequences of early career alcohol industry research funding. Addict Res Theory. 2022;30(2):119-125. doi:1080/16066359.2021.1952190
  52. Durand MA, Petticrew M, Goulding L, Eastmure E, Knai C, Mays N. An evaluation of the Public Health Responsibility Deal: informants' experiences and views of the development, implementation and achievements of a pledge-based, public-private partnership to improve population health in England. Health Policy. 2015;119(11):1506-1514. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.013
  53. Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, et al. The Public Health Responsibility Deal: has a public-private partnership brought about action on alcohol reduction? Addiction. 2015;110(8):1217-1225. doi:1111/add.12892
  54. Maani Hessari N, van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Buse K. The pollution of health discourse and the need for effective counter-framing. BMJ. 2022;377:o1128. doi:1136/bmj.o1128

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 03 December 2023
  • Accept Date: 04 March 2024
  • First Publish Date: 09 April 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics