Table 2.

Policy‐framing strategies.

Object of framing	Strategy
Policy actors	Position themselves as key stakeholders in the policymaking process and partners in tackling alcohol harms 13, 26, 33, 37, 38
	Position themselves as key economic actors; i.e. generators of tax revenue/employment 13, 23, 28, 30, 32, 34
	Claim they are responsible actors, unfairly demonized by public health actors and policymakers 13, 22, 30, 31
	• Emphasize that they are a legal industry 13, 26, 27, 34
	• Differentiate themselves from the tobacco industry 13
	Present public health actors as extremists (or neo‐prohibitionists) driven by a moral agenda in order to undermine their credibility and policy influence 23, 24, 25, 40
The policy problem	Play down the scale of alcohol problems (and thus the need for policy interventions) 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40
	• frame the alcohol problem in terms of a small minority of problem drinkers versus the moderate majority who are already aware of the need to drink responsibly 13, 22, 24, 27, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40
	• emphasize positive effects of alcohol; e.g. social and health benefits of ‘moderate’ drinking 13, 26, 28, 30, 34
	• focus policy debates on narrow range of harms, issues and subpopulations; i.e. binge and youth drinking; drink driving; drinking in pregnancy; certain areas of the country 24, 26, 32, 34, 36, 37
	Promote individualized accounts of the nature of alcohol problems 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39
	• consumer behaviour (misuse), not the product, is the source of harm 13, 24, 34, 39
	• it is unfair to penalize the majority for the actions of the few 24, 27, 28, 34, 38
	Present alcohol and ‘responsible’ drinking as socially acceptable, while alcohol misuse should be socially unacceptable 22, 24, 26, 34, 36, 38
Policy positions	Oppose the whole population approach and specific measures derived from it; argue they are ineffective ‘blunt instruments’ which fail to address the real policy problems and have unintended negative consequences 13, 27, 34, 36, 38, 40
	Oppose:
	• minimum unit pricing (UK); argued it is ineffective, illegal and counterproductive; and that it unfairly targets moderate and less wealthy drinkers 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39
	• tax increases (except as a ‘less bad’ alternative to MUP) 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34
	• advertising, marketing and sponsorship restrictions 13, 22, 24, 27, 31
	• mandatory product labelling regimes 24, 25, 40
	• reductions in blood alcohol levels in drink‐driving laws 24
	• increases in minimum purchase age 39
	Promote targeted interventions (as direct alternatives to whole population intervention), e.g. on parenting style 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39
	Promote voluntary, co‐ and self‐regulatory initiatives and partnerships (as direct alternatives to mandatory regimes) 13, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 40
	• for public information and education including product labelling 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 34, 40
	• for advertising and marketing codes 13, 22
	Promote better enforcement of existing laws (i.e. underage sales and drink driving) as opposed to passing new laws 13, 24, 26, 34, 38, 40
	Promote the ideal of evidence‐based policy, but use evidence selectively to support their policy preferences 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39

MUP = minimum unit pricing.