Policy Actors’ Perceptions of Conflicts of Interest and Alcohol Industry Engagement in UK Policy Processes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Institute of Alcohol Studies, London, UK

2 MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Background 
Alcohol industry organisations occupy a prominent position in UK alcohol policy, but their involvement has been contested by public health bodies on the basis that a conflict of interest (COI) exists between their economic objectives and those of public health. There are ongoing debates in the research literature about how to conceptualise COI and mitigate this in health research and practise. However, less attention has been paid to these issues in relation to the alcohol industry specifically. This article explores similarities and differences in beliefs among alcohol policy actors regarding COI and the implications of engagement with the alcohol industry in the context of UK public health policy.
 
Methods 
Semi-structured interviews with a range of policy actors (n = 26) including medical professionals, parliamentarians, civil servants, academic researchers, health campaigners, and alcohol industry representatives. Interviews with alcohol industry representatives were supplemented with an analysis of industry responses to a public consultation. All data was thematically coded using NVivo software.
 
Results 
Two competing “coalitions” were identified, expressing beliefs about COI linked to alcohol industry engagement. Both divergent and convergent beliefs were expressed by the two coalitions in relation to the type of industry actor, form of engagement, the policy issue under discussion and the stage of policy process.
 
Conclusion
Alcohol policy is a complex and contested space in which policy actors have differing, nuanced and contingent understandings of COI and identify varying risks associated with alcohol industry engagement. In identifying the areas of convergence and diversion in both understanding and evaluation of COI in alcohol-specific settings, these findings will assist both decision-makers and non-governmental actors in developing policies and guidelines to manage potential COI in future.

Keywords

References

  1. Babor TF, Caetano R, Casswell S, et al. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. doi:1093/acprof:oso/9780199551149.001.0001
  2. Burton R, Henn C, Lavoie D, Wolff A, Marsden J, Sheron N. The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies: An Evidence Review. London: Public Health England; 2016.
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020. Geneva: WHO; 2013.
  4. McCambridge J, Hawkins B, Holden C. Vested interests in addiction research and policy. The challenge corporate lobbying poses to reducing society's alcohol problems: insights from UK evidence on minimum unit pricing. Addiction. 2014;109(2):199-205. doi:1111/add.12380
  5. Hawkins B, Holden C. Framing the alcohol policy debate: industry actors and the regulation of the UK beverage alcohol market. Crit Policy Stud. 2013;7(1):53-71. doi:1080/19460171.2013.766023
  6. Katikireddi SV, Bond L, Hilton S. Changing policy framing as a deliberate strategy for public health advocacy: a qualitative policy case study of minimum unit pricing of alcohol. Milbank Q. 2014;92(2):250-283. doi:1111/1468-0009.12057
  7. McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(9):1571-1584. doi:1111/add.14216
  8. Drummond DC. An alcohol strategy for England: the good, the bad and the ugly. Alcohol Alcohol. 2004;39(5):377-379. doi:1093/alcalc/agh087
  9. Room R. Disabling the public interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England. Addiction. 2004;99(9):1083-1089. doi:1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00803.x
  10. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670-679. doi:1016/s0140-6736(12)62089-3
  11. Babor TF, Brown, K, Jernigan, D, et al. Statement of Concern: The International Public Health Community Responds to the Global Alcohol Producers’ Attempts to Implement the WHO Global Strategy on the Harmful Use of Alcohol. London: Global Alcohol Policy Alliance; 2013. https://globalgapa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/WHO-Statement-of-Concern-2013.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2015.
  12. Hawkins B, Holden C. ‘Water dripping on stone’? Industry lobbying and UK alcohol policy. Policy Polit. 2014;42(1):55-70. doi:1332/030557312x655468
  13. World Health Organization (WHO). Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO; 2003.
  14. Stark A. Background Document Developed for WHO Technical Consultation on Addressing and Managing Conflicts of Interest in the Planning and Delivery of Nutrition Programmes at the Country Level. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
  15. Akl EA, Hakoum M, Khamis A, Khabsa J, Vassar M, Guyatt G. A framework is proposed for defining, categorizing, and assessing conflicts of interest in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:236-243. doi:1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.001
  16. Grundy Q, Habibi R, Shnier A, Mayes C, Lipworth W. Decoding disclosure: comparing conflict of interest policy among the United States, France, and Australia. Health Policy. 2018;122(5):509-518. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.015
  17. Resnik DB. Disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interest in scientific publications. Res Ethics. 2023;19(2):121-138. doi:1177/17470161221148387
  18. Wiersma M, Kerridge I, Lipworth W. Dangers of neglecting non-financial conflicts of interest in health and medicine. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(5):319-322. doi:1136/medethics-2017-104530
  19. Galea S. A typology of nonfinancial conflict in population health research. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(5):631-632. doi:2105/ajph.2018.304333
  20. Bero LA, Grundy Q. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e2001221. doi:1371/journal.pbio.2001221
  21. Collin J, Hill SE, Kandlik Eltanani M, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0182612. doi:1371/journal.pone.0182612
  22. Mitchell G, McCambridge J. How do we deal with a problem like the alcohol industry? Four lessons on how to protect science based on recent study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022.
  23. Public Health England (PHE). Prevention of Alcohol Related Harm Leadership Board Terms of Reference. London: PHE; 2016.
  24. UK Parliament. Register of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Harm. UK Parliament; 2015. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/alcohol-harm.htm. Accessed October 20, 2015.
  25. Portman Group. Local Alcohol Partnerships. Portman Group; 2015. http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/docs/default-source/alcohol-and-local-areas/-local-alcohol-partnerships-.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2015.
  26. Smith JA. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd; 2015:1-312.
  27. Submission to Health Select Committee Inquiry on Government’s Alcohol Strategy. Drinkaware; 2012.
  28. Portman Group. Submission to Health Select Committee Inquiry on Government’s Alcohol Strategy.
  29. Submission to Health Select Committee Inquiry on Government’s Alcohol Strategy. Diageo; 2012.
  30. Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, Ingold K. The advocacy coalition framework: an overview of the research program. In: Theories of the Policy Process. New York: Routledge; 2018:135-171.
  31. Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, Sabatier PA. The advocacy coalition framework: foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In: Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 2014:183-224.
  32. Lesch M, McCambridge J. Coordination, framing and innovation: the political sophistication of public health advocates in Ireland. Addiction. 2021;116(11):3252-3260. doi:1111/add.15404
  33. Holden C, Hawkins B, McCambridge J. Cleavages and co-operation in the UK alcohol industry: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:483. doi:1186/1471-2458-12-483
  34. Fergie G, Leifeld P, Hawkins B, Hilton S. Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: a discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage. Addiction. 2019;114(4):741-753. doi:1111/add.14514
  35. Lasswell HD. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park: Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland; 1956.
  36. Bero LA, Grundy Q. Not all influences on science are conflicts of interest. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(5):632-633. doi:2105/ajph.2018.304334
  37. Casswell S. Current status of alcohol marketing policy--an urgent challenge for global governance. Addiction. 2012;107(3):478-485. doi:1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03701.x
  38. McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: a systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(5):565-579. doi:1111/dar.12826
  39. World Health Organization (WHO). Handbook for Non-State Actors on Engagement with the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO; 2018.
  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC’s Guiding Principles for Public-Private Partnerships: A Tool to Support Engagement to Achieve Public Health Goals. Washington, DC: CDC; 2014.
  41. Hawkins BR, McCambridge J. Partners or opponents? Alcohol industry strategy and the 2016 revision of the UK low-risk drinking guidelines. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2021;82(1):84-92.
  42. Lesch M, McCambridge J. Understanding the political organization and tactics of the alcohol industry in Ireland 2009-2018. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022;83(4):574-581. doi:15288/jsad.2022.83.574
  43. Hawkins B, Cassidy R. Interviewing key informants from the corporate sector. In: Researching Corporations and Global Health Governance: An Interdisciplinary Guide. London: Rowman & Littlefield; 2016:127-138.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 April 2023
  • Revise Date: 27 October 2023
  • Accept Date: 14 January 2024
  • First Publish Date: 15 January 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics