Commonalities of influence strategies of the tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks industries

February 25, 2022

Par: National Committee Against Smoking

Dernière mise à jour: February 25, 2022

Temps de lecture: 7 minutes

Funding front groups to counter public policies, directing scientific research to discredit critics, creating new products supposedly less harmful to improve their image, etc. Influence strategies deployed in a similar manner by industrial players in the tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks industries. A study highlights six major commonalities and some differences between the strategies of these three industries.

A team of US public health researchers analyzed these practices in a literature review and was able to identify a common pattern of industrial interference, while isolating some differences.[1].

Six common strategic plans

Six types of strategies common to these three industries have been identified from the scientific literature:

Influencing the design and implementation of public health policies, particularly through lobbying, but also through the use of gateways to the private sector by public decision-makers, donations to parties or politicians, and the influence of public opinion. This may also involve partnering with certain ministries to thwart others or proposing alternative options that prove ineffective.
Opposing science when it is unfavorable to industry, by funding one's own research directly or through front groups. The tobacco and alcohol industries are also known to conceal their funding for certain research and to infiltrate public health research groups.
Building a positive image, whether through corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities that fund civic initiatives or by taking refuge behind a self-regulatory approach. This also involves emphasizing the individual responsibility of consumers. While manufacturers explicitly target vulnerable population groups through marketing campaigns, they oppose social marketing campaigns aimed at the most disadvantaged segments of the population.
Deploy marketing strategies in response to public policies. The tobacco and sugary drink industries regularly offer promotions or price reductions to counter tax increases. They also share a common tendency to exaggerate their contributions to the economic prosperity of countries. The tobacco and alcohol industries also frequently cite the fight against illicit trade. The tobacco industry is the only one to have been identified for smuggling.
Using legal levers, or threatening to do so, to force states to change their regulatory projects. This can be done through national laws, by exercising the preemption of one authority over another. International agreements or their renegotiation are also used to counter local legislation; British American Tobacco (BAT) thus attempted, unsuccessfully, to take advantage of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) to negotiate its tariffs in Europe and demand the right to advertise.[2]The tobacco industry has also tried to use emerging countries to put pressure on high-income countries, as was the case when Honduras, Ukraine, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Indonesia attacked Australia over the implementation of plain packaging.[3].
Anticipating future scenarios, particularly by investing in emerging countries when the markets of high-income countries begin to decline. Fueling tensions between these different countries, for example by presenting the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) as a neocolonial initiative, is one of the strategies used.[4]. Trying to contrast non-communicable diseases, which come from the environment, with communicable diseases, which are a matter of public health, is another specific technique of the tobacco industry.[5]The latter and that of sugary drinks have in common the denigration and division of public health actors.

The authors observe that research on the tobacco industry is by far the most numerous (50% of the corpus), those relating to the strategies of the sugary drinks industry being still very recent.

Sometimes common interests between the three industries

Previous work on common strategies of industries harmful to health[6], this study provides two additional insights, on the issues of marketing strategies and future scenarios. It also highlights some nuances that distinguish the alcohol and sugary drinks industries. These industries participate in international public health bodies, while the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) excludes the tobacco industry by its Article 5.3. They are also distinguished by the addictiveness of their products which, unlike tobacco, only affect a small portion of users – the addictive properties of sugary drinks have not yet been formally demonstrated.

These industries may sometimes act in concert or share common interests. This is the case, for example, between the tobacco and alcohol sectors, which directly exchange information and may occasionally launch coordinated campaigns. Several sugary drink companies have been owned by tobacco companies, and in the Asia-Pacific region, the largest sugary drink brands also own alcohol brands. The tobacco sector often appears as a precursor to other industries, initiating circumvention strategies or sharing public relations firms.

Tobacco control as a model

Another major commonality of these three industries is their heavy burden on non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which account for 70% of annual deaths worldwide. Low- and middle-income countries bear the brunt of these NCDs, with 85% of total deaths, and are the most exposed to industry strategies. The authors conclude that the activities of the alcohol and sugary drinks industries need to be regulated, similar to what has been done for tobacco. However, they note that these two industries have so far failed to forge a strong consensus among health stakeholders, as is the case with tobacco.

Keywords: NCDs, alcohol, sugary drinks, industry.