Big Alcohol Tightens Its Grip on Cambodia’s Alcohol Policy Process
Posted on March 10, 2025 in Bacardi, Diageo, Pernod Ricard, Political interference, CambodiaThe alcohol industry is tightening its grip on Cambodia’s alcohol policy process, using front groups and misleading narratives to shape regulations in its favor. A so-called “white paper” on alcohol consumption, which is still unreleased, is already being positioned as a key document in the policy debate – despite being driven by industry-backed stakeholders. The Southeast Asia Public Policy Institute (SEAPPI), funded by the Asia Pacific International Spirits and Wine Alliance (APISWA), and the Wine Spirits Beer Importer and Distributor Association – a known industry lobby group – are both openly participating in official policy discussions.
The involvement of these entities raises serious concerns about the integrity of Cambodia’s alcohol policy process. Instead of prioritizing effective, evidence-based interventions, statements suggest that the white paper will focus on industry-favored measures that do little to curb alcohol-related harm.
A Familiar Industry Playbook
According to media reports, the white paper highlights “key challenges” such as a lack of consumer awareness about alcohol content and “healthy consumption,” underage drinking, and alcohol-related road safety risks. The proposed solutions? Information and awareness campaigns, which have been repeatedly proven ineffective in changing behavior.
This is a textbook industry tactic: promote so-called “education” and “responsible drinking” while avoiding the policies that actually reduce harm. The concept of “responsible drinking” is an industry invention, shifting the burden onto individuals instead of addressing the structural drivers of alcohol-related harm.
Adding to the deception, industry representatives claim to be examining “global best practices,” yet they ignore the well-documented effectiveness of proven policy interventions like higher alcohol taxes and common-sense limitations on alcohol marketing and availability. Instead of supporting evidence-based measures, they selectively push policies that serve their business interests.
As previously exposed, the industry’s involvement in shaping Cambodia’s alcohol policy represents a blatant conflict of interest. The organizations influencing this process are not neutral public health bodies; they are funded by global alcohol giants with a vested interest in blocking meaningful regulations. APISWA, which bankrolls SEAPPI, represents major multinational alcohol corporations across the Asia-Pacific region, including Bacardi, Beam Suntory, Brown Forman, Campari, Diageo, Moët Hennessy and Pernod Ricard.
Allowing the alcohol industry to shape policy is a clear case of conflict of interest that undermines public health and development for people and communities in Cambodia. Just as tobacco companies are excluded from influencing tobacco control, alcohol corporations should have no role in designing policies that impact their profits. Safeguarding policymaking from industry interference is essential to ensure that decisions prioritize public health and sustainable development over corporate interests.
Political interference, or lobbying, is Big Alcohol’s activity to eliminate or minimize any alcohol policy effort that would threaten sales and profits. The focus of this Dubious 5 strategy is the decision-makers and opinion leaders with the power to shape and decide alcohol policy decisions. Tactics of political interference are delay, derail, or even destroy alcohol policy initiatives, and to divide coalitions supporting alcohol policy initiatives. Big Alcohol is paying lobbyists and lobby front groups to interfere in public health policy making around the world.