Background There is growing evidence that the alcohol industry seeks to obstruct public health policies that might affect future alcohol sales. In parallel, the alcohol industry funds organisations that engage in ‘responsible drinking’ campaigns. Evidence is growing that the content and delivery of such campaigns appear to serve commercial, rather than public health interests, however little is known regarding the forms of influence these partnerships may foster, in part because this may include interactions, agreements or relationships that are not public or part of formal campaign evaluations. This study aimed to examine the nature and potential impacts of such partnerships through the example of the alcohol industry charity Drinkaware’s Drink Free Days campaign, using documentation revealed by Freedom of Information (FoI) Request.

Methods This was a case study based on an inductive analysis of documents revealed by FoI request regarding communications between DrinkAware, Public Health England, and the Portman Group, in the years running up to, and during, the Drink Free Days campaign, a partnership between alcohol industry-funded charity Drinkaware, and Public Health England that took place in 2018-2019. FoI requests returned 186 pages of documentation which formed the primary dataset. The names of staff revealed in FoI requests, except for those clearly identifiable due to being the leaders of the organisations in question, were redacted.

Results This study reveals a range of less visible, system-level effects of such partnerships for government departments and civil society. The tensions observed, as exhibited by discrepancies between internal and external communications, the emphasis on managing and mitigating the perception of negative consequences, and the links to wider alcohol industry initiatives and bodies, suggest the need for wider considerations of organizational conflicts of interest, and of possible indirect, harmful consequences to policymaking. These include the marginalization of other civil society voices, the displacing of more effective policy options, and strategic alignment with other industry lobbying activities.

Discussion The findings have implications for how public health practitioners and health organisations might better weigh the potential trade-offs of partnership in the context of health promotion campaigns, and which stakeholder interests they may serve in less direct or obvious ways. There are several limitations associated with this study methodology. It is not possible to ascertain how representative internal documentation received may be of the wider dynamics between the organisations, and additional relevant documentation may have been withheld under FoI exemptions. Nevertheless, the findings, triangulated with public statements, key dates and prior literature on the activities and purpose of such charities represent a rare illustration of the dynamics of these types of interaction.