“Responsible drinking” is one of the alcohol industry’s most deceptive tools. It shifts the blame for harm onto individuals while ignoring the structural drivers of alcohol problems – cheap prices, aggressive marketing, and wide availability. The narrative can even sound like prevention but in practice it protects corporate profits and diverts attention from proven public health solutions.
The International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD) is presenting its “Global Standards Coalition” as a breakthrough in tackling alcohol harm. More than 100 corporations – from alcohol giants like AB InBev, Diageo and Bacardi to tech platforms such as Google, Meta and TikTok – are showcased as partners in “reducing harmful drinking.” On closer inspection, it is just another industry-led initiative designed to deflect from effective alcohol policy, this time with the help of Big Tech.
The concept of “responsible drinking” is fundamentally flawed. It reduces alcohol harm to a matter of personal choice, implying that those who suffer the consequences simply failed to control themselves. This framing conveniently removes the industry from responsibility, even though its profits depend on pushing high-risk use through aggressive pricing, marketing, and availability. At the same time, this narrative allows alcohol companies to present themselves as “responsible corporate citizens,” boasting about campaigns and partnerships that are ment to create goodwill with governments and international agencies. In practice, this narrative shifts the burden onto individuals, buys political legitimacy for the industry, and deflects attention away from what really works to address alcohol harm.
The coalition’s Standards in Action report highlights a range of initiatives built around the idea of “responsible drinking”. It even presents straightforward marketing exercises – such as AB InBev’s sponsorship of the Paris Olympics – as supposed contributions to “responsible consumption” and solutions to alcohol harm. Yet none of these measures touch the real drivers of harm: cheap prices, constant availability, and relentless alcohol promotion.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is clear about what works. The most effective and cost-effective measures to reduce alcohol harm are population-level policies: raise alcohol taxes, limit alcohol availability, and ban alcohol advertising.
Another example in the report is Bacardi’s “You Do You” campaign in Belgium. Promoted as a tool to help students and other young people resist peer pressure and “know their limits,” it reached more than 3 million impressions across Meta and YouTube. While framed as empowerment, the message shifts responsibility to individuals – suggesting harm is the result of personal weakness rather than a product of alcohol’s ubiquity and the industry’s relentless marketing. At the same time, it reinforces harmful norms by telling young people that alcohol use is the default – something everyone does, with the only question being how “responsible” they are about it.
Another case is Pernod Ricard’s “Drink More Water” initiative, which has generated over 600 million online impressions since 2021. Marketed as a health-conscious reminder, it normalizes alcohol use by framing it as safe if accompanied by water. This is brand visibility wrapped in the language of prevention.
The coalition also promotes “influencer safeguards” to ensure alcohol marketing avoids depicting excessive use or disparaging abstinence. Independent studies show alcohol industry self-regulation does not reduce youth exposure or harmful content. Digital marketing in particular routinely reaches underage users despite supposed protections.
The alcohol industry’s profits depend on sustained high levels of consumption, including youth use and high-risk use. This is an irreconcilable clash. Industry partnerships framed as “whole-of-society” solutions do not resolve the problem – they entrench it.
Manipulation is Big Alcohol’s activity to control its image. The alcohol industry engages in manipulation activities to protect and cultivate their image and the values of their brands. Deploying manipulation strategies serves for Big Alcohol to appear as “good corporate citizens”. The focus of the Dubious Five strategy of manipulation is the alcohol company, their brands and value. Examples are Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), green-washing, pink-washing, rainbow-washing, or white-washing activities.
Source:
https://www.beerguild.co.uk/news/raising-global-responsibility-standards-over-100-leading-companies-unite-to-reduce-harmful-drinking