Table 3.

Frames and arguments used by the alcohol industry when attempting to influence marketing regulation.

Frame			Argument	Total number of papers, by geography a
(total number of uses identified)
Regulatory redundancy (40)			Industry adheres to own self‐regulation codes/self‐regulation is working well or is better than formal regulation	Africa – 1
				31
				Asia – 1
				32
				Australasia – 3
				33, 34, 35
				Europe – 5
				27, 27, 27, 27, 27
				Transnational – 1
				43
			Industry only markets to those of legal age/is actively opposed to minors using product	Australasia – 1
				34
				Europe – 1
				27
				N. America – 2
				28, 41
			Existing regulation is satisfactory/existing regulation is satisfactory, but requires better enforcement	Asia – 1
				32
				Australasia – 1
				33
				Europe – 3
				27, 27, 38
			Industry is responsible	Australasia – 3
				33, 33, 34
				Europe – 2
				27, 27
				N. America – 1
				41
			Individuals should consume product responsibly/individual‐level approach needed	Africa – 1
				30
				Australasia – 1
				34
				Europe – 2
				27, 27
				N. America – 1
				41
				Transnational – 2
				42, 42
			Industry has positive impact	Africa – 2
				30, 30
				Australasia – 2
				33, 34
				Europe – 1
				27
				N. America – 2
				39, 41
Legal (8)			Infringes legal rights of company (trademarks, intellectual property, constitutionally protected free speech (e.g. US First Amendment), international trade agreements)	Asia – 1
				32
				Europe – 1
				27
				N. America – 1
				41
			Regulation is more extensive than necessary/regulation is disproportionate	Europe – 3
				27, 27, 27
				Transnational – 1
				42
			Interferes with a free market economy	Europe – 1
				27
Negative Unintended Consequences (16)	Economic	Manufacturers	The cost of compliance for manufacturers will be high/the time required for implementation has been underestimated	N. America – 1
				40
			Regulation will result in financial or job losses (among manufacturers)	Asia – 1
				32
			The regulation is discriminatory/regulation will not affect all producers/customers equally	Australasia – 1
				34
				Europe – 3
				27, 27, 27
		Public revenue	Regulation will cause economic/financial problems [for city, state, country or economic area (e.g. European Union)]	Australasia – 1
				34
		Associated industries	Regulation will result in financial or job losses (among retailers and other associated industries, e.g. printing, advertising, leisure)	Asia – 1
				32
				Australasia – 1
				34
	Public health		Regulation will have negative public health consequences	Australasia – 1
				33
				Europe – 2
				27, 27
				N. America – 1
				41
	Other		Regulation could have other negative unintended consequences	Europe – 2
				27, 27
				Transnational – 1
				42
Complex policy area (13)			Complicated/beyond industry's control	Europe – 2
				27, 27
			Collaboration with industry would be beneficial	Africa – 4
				30, 30, 30, 30
				Australasia – 1
				33
				Europe – 2
				27, 38
			Characterizing policymakers and public health actors as authoritarian/denigrating policymakers and public health actors	Asia – 2
				32, 32
				Australasia – 2
				33, 34
Insufficient evidence (8)			There is insufficient evidence that the proposed policy will work/marketing does not cause or change behaviour (it is only used for brand selection and capturing market share), so regulation will have no effect	Asia – 1
				32
				Australasia – 1
				34
				Europe – 3
				27, 27, 38
				N. America – 1
				40
				Transnational – 2
				41, 43

^aThis column shows the number of times each argument was used by geography. If an argument was referred to more than once (in one or multiple papers) regarding the same policy then it was only counted once; however, if it was referred to more than once about different policies then this was counted separately.