Background

In February 2025, in the shadow of the Guinness brewery (part of Diageo), often synonymous with Dublin, a workshop event, ‘The other side of the coin’, was held in Rialto’s F2 Centre. The workshop, organised by the Canal Communities Local Drug and Alcohol Task Force, Irish Community Action on Alcohol Network (ICAAN), and the Health Service Executive (HSE), aimed to explore the challenges and strategies for building understanding of alcohol harm in communities where the alcohol industry has created a narrative of embodying virtue in the Dublin 8 area.

Friend or foe?

Often referred to fondly in this part of Dublin as a great employer, a ‘family’, or an ‘institution’, the Guinness brewery and its by-product are, in fact, associated with high levels of alcohol-related harm within this community and farther afield. Professor Mark Petticrew, Professor of Public Health in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, drew on the darker, overlooked side of an industry whose primary product is harmful to population health, a commercial determinant of health.1

Distracting tactics

Professor Petticrew outlined some of the tactics used by the alcohol industry, such as the lobbying of policy-makers, advertising and marketing to drive demand and consumption, supply chain and waste practices that harm human and planetary health, scientific practices, labour and employment practices, and certain financial practices such as tax avoidance.

Professor Petticrew went on to highlight examples of strategies specifically used by the alcohol industry, but which are reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry in the 1920s–1930s. These include responsibility messaging, whereby the blame for the harms associated with alcohol use are shifted to the individual (not to the industry); a focus on a minority of ‘harmful drinkers’ and on ‘problem behaviours’, while avoiding mentioning that the harms associated affect a much wider group than the drinker alone, or that the product causes the problem; and strategic ambiguous messaging, sometimes delivering mixed messages (e.g. messages may appear to be warning about harms but can also be promoting the products and brands at the same time). Evidence of the latter indicates that industry responsibility messaging can, in fact, increase consumption, as those who view such messaging have been shown to focus on the positive alcohol-related imagery rather than the health messaging.2

Evidence also exists to indicate that strategies to misinform about alcohol are often used, creating doubt about alcohol harms, including cancer denialism through the hiding, denying, and distorting of the risk of cancer from alcohol use.3 This has also been noted in denialism of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) and of the harms of drinking during pregnancy.4 Denialism of the association of alcohol use with cardiovascular disease (CVD) has also been evident, as has a greater emphasis on the so-called ‘health benefits’ of wine. Although studies have found some positive association, the most up-to-date and robust evidence indicates that the harms significantly outweigh any health gains.5-7

Corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) tactics have been noted to be utilised by the alcohol industry to enhance its public image and reputation. Some common ways of doing this have been observed, including by funding charities (such as Drinkaware), supporting community groups, sponsoring sports or the arts, sustainability initiatives, and other ‘greenwashing’ initiatives. Although these tactics are commonly used by profit-making industries and can deliver some benefits to society, the concern relates to the negative impacts associated with alcohol industry CSR practices. These can include policy substitution, where CSR is used by the alcohol industry to undermine evidence-based policies (e.g. minimum unit pricing), or partnerships and charity work that is used to give a ‘health halo’ to their activities. Other industry CSR practices include where industry actors are afforded additional opportunities to influence public health policy and research in ways that are most aligned with their commercial interests, and ethical harms through public-private partnerships whereby it has been noted that such industries ‘create subtle reciprocities and influence that undermine the integrity of government bodies, as well as public trust in those institutions’.8

What to do?

But all is not lost. Professor Petticrew highlighted a number of actions that individuals, communities, and policy-makers alike can take, including challenging our ways of thinking and assumptions that have become the norm; to consider the evidence; to not just think about unhealthy products but to also consider the practices and strategies of these companies; to consider who really benefits; and to challenge and raise awareness of these practices.

The workshop concluded with a presentation from Paula Leonard, CEO of Alcohol Forum Ireland, who explained and encouraged the use of the i-mark initiative. i-mark was developed in response to concerns about the conflict between the motives of the alcohol industry and the health and well-being of the population.9 Organisations can sign up to i-mark to signify that they are independent from the alcohol industry.

1    Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, et al. (2023) Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet, 401: 1194–1213. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00013-2

2    Moss AC, Albery IP, Dyer KR, et al. (2015) The effects of responsible drinking messages on attentional allocation and drinking behaviour. Addict Behav, 44: 94–101. doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.11.035

3    Petticrew M, Maani Hessari N, Knai C, et al. (2018) How alcohol industry organisations mislead the public about alcohol and cancer. Drug Alcohol Rev, 37. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27944/

4    Lim AW, Van Schalkwyk MC, Maani Hessari N, et al. (2019) Pregnancy, fertility, breastfeeding, and alcohol consumption: an analysis of framing and completeness of information disseminated by alcohol industry-funded organizations. J Stud Alcohol Drugs, 80: 524–533.

5    Peake L, van Schalkwyk MC, Maani N, et al. (2021) Analysis of the accuracy and completeness of cardiovascular health information on alcohol industry-funded websites. Eur J Public Health, 31: 1197–1204

6    Mitchell G, Lesch M and McCambridge J (2020) Alcohol industry involvement in the moderate alcohol and cardiovascular health trial. Am J Public Health, 110: 485–488.

7    Krittanawong C, Isath A, Rosenson RS, et al. (2022) Alcohol Consumption and Cardiovascular Health. Am J Med, 135: 1213–1230. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.04.021

8    Marks JH (2019) The perils of partnership: industry influence, institutional integrity, and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9    Doyle A (2022) i-mark initiative – supporting independence from alcohol industry influence. Drugnet Ireland, 80 (Winter): 18. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/35825/