4.4 디아지오와 정부와의 연계
디아지오는 또한 영국에서 정부와의 ‘밀접한 연락책’으로서 ‘정부업무감독’으로 임명되었다. 이 사람은 전 보건부장관의 ‘특별고문’이었던 팀 라이크로프트로 그는 규제를 부과하려는 부처내에서 지식과 접촉을 통해 회사의 영향력을 행사할 수 있다는 가능성을 충분히 상상할 수 있다.
디아지오는 또한 포럼이나 회의, 세미나에서 업계 대표로 참여하여 정부의 장관들과 함께 정책을 만드는데 적극적인 역할을 하면서 정부와의 연계를 강화하고 있다.
예를 들면, 2004년 5월 20일에 열린 ‘책임있는 음주세미나’에서는 장관급의 알콜 정책을 이끌어 냈다. 이 컨퍼런스는 디아지오의 주도 하에 개최되었다. 컨퍼런스를 조직하는 공공정책연구소(IPPR)와의 더 밀접한 연계를 갖는데 이 단체의 설립자이자 최고의 수탁자인 배론 홀릭은 디아지오의 고위 비상임 이사를 맡고 있다. (이 프로필의 ‘누가, 어디에, 얼마나 절’ www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=1707 ” 을 참조) 이 컨퍼런스는 알코올에 관련된 건강 문제보다는 사회적인 것에 더 초점을 맞추어 업계와 협력하는 정부의 정책을 강조하는데 앞장서고 있다. 이 회의에는 내무부장관 헤이젤 블레어즈, 보건장관 멜라니 존슨 뿐만 아니라, 토니 블레어 총리가 참석했는데 그는 과음은 ‘새로운 영국병’이 될 위험이 있다고 말했다. 그외에 경찰과 건강보험 대표들도 참석했다.
2004년 9월 7일 열린 웨스트민스터 다이어트 및 건강 포럼 전국세미나에서 ‘알코올, 광고 규제, 라이센스 및 공중 보건’에 대해 회의가 열렸는데, 음주규제에 대한 개혁을 검토하고, 고위정책결정자에 대한 포괄적인 브리핑도 있었다. 이 회의의 연자에는 포트먼그룹의 다른 회원들 뿐만 아니라 디아지오의 ‘정부업무감독’인 팀 라이크로프트도 포함되어 있다.
4.4 Diageo’s Links with the Government
Diageo has also appointed a ‘Government Affairs Director’ in the UK for ‘closer liaison’ with government. This is Tim Rycroft, former ‘special advisor’ to the Secretary of State for Health,83 and therefore, we can imagine, able to give the company influential contacts and knowledge within the department most likely to want to impose regulation.
Diageo has also been boosting its links with government through its participation in forums, conferences and seminars in which industry representatives come together with government ministers to play an active role in policy making.
For example, a ‘Responsible Drinking Seminar’ was held on 20th May 2004, which led ministerial policy on alcohol.84 The conference was commissioned and hosted by Diageo. A further link was through the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which organised the conference, whose founder and leading trustee Baron Hollick is also Diageo’s senior non-executive director.(See Who, Where, How Much section of this profile.)85 The conference spearheaded the government’s policy of partnership with the industry, and the focus on social rather than health problems associated with alcohol. It was attended by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said that binge-drinking was in danger of becoming ‘the new British disease,’ as well as by Home Office Minister Hazel Blears, Public Health Secretary Melanie Johnson, and representatives from the police and health services.86
On 7th September 2004 a Westminster Diet and Health Forum National Seminar was held on ‘Alcohol, Advertising Regulation, Licensing and Public Health,’ to examine reform on alcohol regulation, and contribute to comprehensive briefing documents for senior policy makers. Speakers at this conference included Tim Rycroft, Diageo’s ‘Government Affairs director,’ as well as other members of the Portman Group.
4.4.1. 정책에 강한 영향력 행사
‘알코올 관련 공중보건정책은 상업적 이익의 간섭없이, 공중보건의 이익에 의해 제정되어야 할 필요가 있다.’
세계 보건기구, 2001
이 섹션은 현재 영국의 알코올 정책의 경우를 통해, 알코올 운동단체와 보건전문가들이 심각하게 우려하듯이 정책이 업계의 이익에 따라가고 있음을 입증하고있다.
정부는 업계가 사용하는 업계의 언어로 발표했다. 2005년 1월 정부는 알코올정책은 ‘주류업계’를 포함하여,’국가 및 지역 수준에서 같이 일할 파트너쉽이 필요하다’고 언급하면서, ‘분별있게 마시는 것을 표준으로 하는 문화’를 만드는 것이 목적이라고 밝혔다.
디아지오가 2004년 5월 주최한 IPPR의 ‘책임있는 음주세미나’에서 토니 블레어 영국총리가 무책임한 상습 음주를 공격하고 적당한 음주와 산업 협력에 대한 방어를 이야기할 때, 마치 디아지오의 CEO인 폴 월시가 말하는 것 같았다 :
‘수백만의 사람들이 매일 책임있는 음주를 하고 있다. 아무도 그 기쁨을 멈추려 하지 않는다…하지만 금요일과 토요일 밤에 우리 마을과 시내 중심 거리에서 문제가 생긴다…제가 알기로는 업계에서 규정에 따라 매우 열심히 노력한 것으로 알고 있다…나는 이 업계에 좋은 일을 할 기회를 주길 바라는데 상습 음주문제를 다루기 위해 최선을 다하고 있는 것을 증명하면서 이미 그들은 그런 일을 하고는 있지만 말이다.’
이 섹션에서 알코올에 대한 블레어 정부의 일반화 전략이 2004년 3월 처음 발표했고, 우선순위에서 지난 몇 년간 특별한 입법으로 처리되고, 그 다음에는 일반적인 정치의 사기업화 경향을 보이는 것을 알 수 있다 :
국립 알코올상해감소전략
혈중 알코올 농도, 2002
판매시간 연장, 2003
개인에 촛점을 맞춘 대책, 2004-5
정책에의 기업 참여
4.4.1. Impact on Policy
‘Public health policies concerning alcohol need to be formulated by public health interests, without interference from commercial interests.’87
World Health Organisation, 2001
This section will look at the case of current British alcohol policy, which has proved amenable to industry interests, to the severe concern of alcohol campaigning groups and health experts.
The government has issued statements that echo the language used by the industry. In January 2005 the government stated that alcohol policy ‘requires partnership working at both national and local level,’ including with ‘the drinks industry,’ and expressed the aim of creating ‘a culture where drinking sensibly is the norm.’88
Tony Blair, speaking at the IPPR ‘Responsible Drinking Seminar’ which Diageo hosted in May 2004, sounded not unlike Paul Walsh, Diageo’s CEO, in his attack on irresponsible binge drinking and defence of moderate drinking and industry partnership:
‘Millions of people drink alcohol responsibly every day. No-one wants to stop that pleasure. But there is a growing problem on our town and city centre streets on Friday and Saturday nights…I know the industry is working hard on codes of practice… I want to give the industry a chance to build on the good work that I know is already out there and to prove that it is committed to tackling the problems of binge drinking.’89
The section will look first at the generalised strategy of the Blair government on alcohol, released in March 2004, and its priorities, then at specific items of legislation over the last few years, then at general trends in the corporatisation of politics:
National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
Blood Alcohol Level, 2002
Increase in Licensing Hours, 2003
Measures Targeting the Individual, 2004-5
Corporate Involvement in Policy
산업계와의 파트너쉽 : 국립 알코올상해감소전략, 2004
2004년 3월 15일 정부는 ‘잉글랜드와 웨일즈에 대한 알코올위해 감소전략’을 발간했다. 이 정책의 초점은 자율 규제이며, 알코올 업계의 이해를 둘러싼 제안을 구조화하는 것이다. 이 전략은 ‘알코올 오용에 의한 위해를 막고 예방하는 것을 돕는 중요한 역할’을 가지고 ‘영국의 경제 및 사회의 실질적이고 중요한 부분’으로 보는 업계와의 협력이라는 아이디어에 의해 강화되고 있다. 이 보고서는 기업의 자기규제를 찬양하고 더 ‘우리가 가장 좋은 방법으로 준수할 수 있는 의지를 기업이 보여주도록 허락할 수 있는 것’처럼 ‘초기의 자발적인’ 참영와 강화된 자기규제를 공식화하고 있다. 이 조언에는 기업과의 협력보다는 규제가 더 낫다는 것을 간과하고 있다. 중독연구소교수인 마틴 플랜트는 다음과 같이 말했다 :
‘자발적인 동의는 결과적으로는 상징적이거나 최소의 동의로 여겨지는 경향이 있다. 후자는 알콜과 같은 중요한 건강이나 사회정책이슈에 관련해서는 받아들일 수 없다.’
공공의료나 자발적인 분야의 전문가들은 이를 ‘절망적이거나 기업에 알아서 기는 것으로’ 보고 있다.(크리스틴 고드프리교수, 전락단 자문) 주장한 바에 의하면, 포트먼그룹 CEO인 진 쿠션즈가 ‘나는 기업내에서 선도기업들이 이미 이런 좋은과정을 만들어가고 있다고 인식하고 있는 정부에 대해 기뻐하고 있다’고 말하는 것처럼 이 정책에 대해 구원하는 식으로 반응하고 있다. 공공의료쪽 의견에 반해 일반적인 음주보다는 과음하는 소수에 타겟을 맞추는 전략인 기업의 제안과 함께 하면서, 건강보다는 ‘공공질서’를 강조하는 기업의 입장을 취하고, 음주 자체보다는 이런 음주의 행동패턴이나 양이 위해를 일으키는 원인이라는 기업의 주장에 손을 들어 주고 있다.
많은 건강전문가들은 응급사고로 치료받은 대부분의 사람들이 술때문이며 간손상이 과음과 같은 반사회적 행동보다는 지속적인 음주때문에 일어난다고 주장을 하면서 알콜위해에 대한 기업의 주장에 대해 논박을 하고 있다. 알콜컨선은 ‘ 개별적인 음주에 대해 제제하는 전략의 실패는 정치적의지와 국가의 건강을 보호하는 책임을 방기하는 기업들의 전략을 정부 부서가 같이 하는 ‘정부와의 결탁’을 막는 것을 실패하게 했다.’고 말했다. 저명한 유행병학자인 리차드 돌은 30년만에 간경변이 1000% 증가했다고 보고서에 발표하면서 다음과 같이 말했다 :
‘내가 참석했던 모든 과학위원회는 음주에 의해 일어나는 위해를 줄이는 방법은 단지 총 술소비량을 줄이는 것만으로도 가능하다고 결론을 내렸다. 단지 소수를 맞추어 해결해서는 안된다. 이런 것을 언급하는 유일한 사람들은 전략단 뿐이다.’
이런 우선순위의 실제적인 결과로 기업과의 파트너쉽, 교육캠페인, 개인적인 반사회적행위에 대한 교정 등의 정책이 시행되고 있다. 주류세나 광고, 술가격 등 기업들에 피해를 줄 수 있는 정책수단들은 의료전문가들이 선호함에도 불구하고 무시되고 있다. 정부의 모든 태도를 내무부장관 헤이젤 블레어즈이 다음처럼 요약했다 :
‘나는 과학적인 견해를 존중하지만, 우리는 아니다. 우리는 실용적인 수단을 필요로 한다.’
Partnership with the Industry: National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, 2004
On 15th March 2004 the government published its ‘Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England and Wales.’ The focus of the policy was on self-regulation, and it structured its proposals around the interests of the alcohol industry. The strategy was underpinned by the idea of cooperation with the industry, which it saw as ‘a substantial and valuable part of the UK economy and society,’ with ‘a valuable role in helping to prevent and tackle the harms caused by alcohol misuse.’ The Report congratulated the industry’s self regulation and formulated a scheme of further self-regulation, participation in which ‘should initially be voluntary’ as ‘we are keen to allow the industry to demonstrate its willingness to abide by best practice.’90 This overlooked advice to regulate rather than cooperate with the industry. Martin Plant, Professor of Addiction Studies, said that:
‘voluntary agreements have a tendency to result in token or minimal compliance. The latter is unacceptable in relation to such an important health and social policy issue as alcohol.’91
Public health and voluntary sector experts criticised the policy, seeing it as ‘a disappointment and a sop to the industry’ (Professor Christine Godfrey, advisor to the Strategy Unit).92 Allegedly, the industry responded with relief to the policy, Jean Coussins, Chief Executive of the Portman Group saying ‘I am pleased that the government has recognised that it can build on the good practice already in place amongst leading companies within the industry.’93 In line with industry suggestions and against public health advice, the strategy targets a minority of binge drinkers rather than overall consumption of alcohol, taking up the industry’s emphasis on ‘public order’ rather than health, and the industry’s assumption that harm is caused not by alcohol consumption itself but the amount consumed and behavioural patterns of those drinking.
Many health experts dispute the industry assumption about alcohol harm, suggesting that liver failure caused by sustained drinking, rather than anti-social behaviour caused by binge-drinking, account for the majority of people treated in Accident and Emergency for problems caused by alcohol.94
Alcohol Concern suggested that ‘the failure of the strategy to tackle per capita consumption represents a failure of political will and a breakdown of ‘joined-up government’, with departments working with the industry winning a flawed strategy over those responsible for protecting the nation’s health.’95 Richard Doll, a leading epidemiologist pointed to a 1000% increase in liver cirrhosis over the last 30 years, which was left out of the report, and stated that:
‘Every scientific committee I have ever sat on has concluded that reduction in harm caused by drinking can only be achieved by reducing our overall consumption. It just doesn’t work to target a minority. The only people I have seen recommend this are the strategy unit.’96
The effective result of these priorities are policies which include partnership with the industry, education campaigns, and targeting of individual anti-social behaviour. Those measures which could have harmed the industry, including targeting of drinking venues, advertising and drinks prices, were ignored despite their preference by health experts.97
The overall attitude of the government was summed up well by home office minister Hazel Blears:
‘I respect the scientific view, but it wasn’t for us. We needed practical measures.’98
혈중 알코올 농도, 2002
2002년 3월 영국정부는 혈중 알코올 농도를 EU 기준인 0.05%에서 1998년 수준인 0.08%로 후퇴시켰다. 상원위원회는 ‘지방정부, 경찰, 영국의사협회, 자동차협회, 왕립사고예방협회, 교통연구소, 의회교통안전자문위원회’ 등의 반대에도 불구하고, ‘이 결정은[기준을 내리면 안된다는] 우리가 받은 모든 증거와 상반되었으며’ 그리고 ‘이 부서의 의견은 알콜기업의 의견과도 일치했다’ 고 밝혔다. 1998년에 제안 당시 이를 반대했던 반음주운동 캠페인에도 불구하고, 포트먼그룹과 정부부서와의 만남 후 받아들여진 기준은 바꾸지 못했고, 정부는 포트먼그룹에 연구를 맡기고 2002년 결정을 진행시켰다. 전해지는 바에 의하면, 노동당 소속의 상원위원회 위원장은 그가 ‘주류업계의 확실한 영향력에 놀랐다’고 언급했다.
Blood Alcohol Level, 2002
In March 2002 the UK government went back on its 1998 plan to reduce the blood alcohol concentration limit for drink-driving from 0.08% to the EU level of 0.05%. A House of Lords Committee noted that ‘this decision [not to reduce the level] contradicts all the evidence we have received’ and that ‘the Department’s position coincides with that of the alcohol industry,’ despite opposition from ‘local authorities, the police, the British Medical Association, the Automobile Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Transport Research Laboratory, and the Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transport Safety.’99 The decision not to reduce the acceptable level came after meetings between the department and the Portman group, who despite their anti-drink-driving campaigns100 were against the reduction when it was proposed in 1998,101 and the government drew on research carried out by the Portman Group in their 2002 decision.102 Allegedly, The chair of the House of Lords Committee, a Labour peer, noted that he ‘was surprised by the apparent influence of the drinks industry.’103
판매시간 연장, 2003
In 2003년 정부는 가능한 술판매 시간을 연장했고, 지방정부들은 2005년 2월부터 24시간 판매할 수 있는 라이선스를 허용했다. 판매시간을 연장하면 과음을 늘릴 수 밖에 없다는 광범위한 믿음에도 불구하고 말이다. 부수상실 하에 있는 알콜정책을 다루는 다른 부분과는 달리 판매시간을 정하는 것은 건강이나 범죄보다는 관광이나 엔터테이먼트에 더 걱정하는 문화ㆍ매체ㆍ스포츠부에서 관할하고 있다. 저널리스트, 광범위한 대중단체, 법률단체 및 알콜운동단체들은 시간연장이 알콜 관련 범죄나 폭력을 증가시킬 것이라는 우려를 밝혔다. 수도경찰청의 보고서는 불법택시의 증가, 거주지역에서의 소란 증가나 늦은 밤에 경찰의 단속력이 부족할 때 음주운전이 증가할 것이라고 예견하면서, 신라이센스법을 주장하는 정부의 의견에 반대했다. 그리고 ’이 나라에서는 음주문화가 더 강화되고 있는데, 판매시간을 느슨하게 하는 것은 이런 문화에 기름을 붓는 격임을 누구나 예상할 수 있다.’고 주장했다.
비록 2003년 법이 허가 연장시 ‘여전히 허가당국의 동의를 필요로’ 하고 있어, 경찰이나 지역주민들의 반대에 부딪치자, 문화ㆍ매체ㆍ스포츠부에서 2004년 3월 허가당국의 범위를 제한하는 안내초안을 발표했다. 연구자인 로빈룸에 따르면, 이 가이드는 기업측에게 중앙정부보다 더 빡빡한 지방정부에게 주어진 가능성을 제한하여 기업의 이익을 지방정부로 부터 보호해 주게되어 기업측에게는 성공적인 캠페인으로 나타났다. 이 가이드에 따르면, 첫째 목표가 ‘기업에게 더 큰 자유와 유연성’을 주는 것이라고 언급되어 있다. 허가당국의 제한은 확실하게 범위를 제한했고, ‘열망적일 수’ 없게 했으며, ‘예로, 조건들은 그들의 직접적인 신체적인 안전보다는 소비자들의 건강에 관련해서 정해지지 못해’ 이것이 법안의 대상이 되지 못했다. 게다가, 일단 사람들이 걱정스러워하던 ‘전제의 근처를 넘어’서면, 사람들의 행위는 ‘법아래 개인의 책임의’ 문제가 되어 버린다.
2005년 1월 21일, 정부는 허가에 대한 점검을 통해 사람들이 계속 마시고 무질서하게 하는 것을 금지하고, 경고 후 ‘알콜무질서지역’으로 판단된 지역의 펍에는 치안비용을 더 물리는 예상가능한 위험한 결과를 제어할 수단을 발표했다. 알콜컨선의 스라바니 센은 이런 벌금이 불충분하며, 납세자들이 증가한 치안비용을 계속 물게된다고 주장했다.
Increase in Licensing hours, 2003
In 2003 the government extended potential licensing hours, with local authorities able to grant a license for up to 24 hours from February 2005.104 This despite substantial concerns about binge-drinking and widespread belief that extended licensing hours would contribute to it. The government department responsible for licensing hours is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which makes it separate from other areas of alcohol policy under the Home Office and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), a concern of tourism and entertainment rather than health or crime. Journalists, the wider public, statutory agencies and alcohol campaigning groups have expressed concerns that the extended licensing hours will lead to an increase in crime and violence associated with alcohol. A report by the Metropolitan Police contradicts the government claims for the new Licensing Act, forecasting an increase in drink-driving due to the lack of late night public transport, a growth of illegal taxis, and greater disturbance to residents,105 and suggests that ‘with the drinking culture that is firmly entrenched in the country, the relaxations in permitted hours will for the foreseeable future fuel this culture.’106
Although the 2003 Act states that license extensions will ‘still need the licensing authority’s agreement,’ after objections have been made by the police and local people,107 the DCMS published a Draft Guidance in March 2004 which restricted the scope of licensing authorities. In the view of researcher, Robin Room, the guidance reveals a successful campaign on the part of the industry to ensure government limits the possibilities open to local authorities and thereby ensure their interests are protected from local authorities who may be less flexible towards them than central government.108 In the guidance, the first stated aim of the act is to ‘give business greater freedom and flexibility.’109 The remit of licensing authorities is limited to a certain scope and cannot be ‘aspirational,’ ‘for example, conditions may not be attached which relate solely to the health of customers rather than their direct physical safety,’ as that is not a concern of this piece of legislation.110 Additionally, once people are ‘beyond the vicinity of the premises’ concerned, their behaviour is a matter ‘for personal responsibility of individuals under the law.’111
On 21st January 2005 the government announced measures to counteract the possible dangerous effects of the licensing overhaul, including banning orders on people persistently drunk and disorderly, and charges on pubs to pay for further policing in areas judged as ‘alcohol disorder zones,’ after a warning.112 Srabani Sen of Alcohol Concern, suggested the charges would be insufficient, with the taxpayer continuing to pay for increased policing needs.113
개인에 촛점을 맞춘 대책
알콜정책은 사회적 배경에 대한 근거없이 개인차원에서 사회문제를 정의하는 경향과 해결책의 포커스를 개인에게 맞추는 블레어정부가 선호하는 것들을 반영하고 있다. 이는 알콜의 개인적인 오용에 촛점을 맞추고 있는 알콜기업의 뜻과 부합하고 있으며, 정부는 위에 언급한 것처럼 이를 정책에 반영하고 있다. 정책의 핵심은 모든 정책을 개인들이 이런 문제에 대해 비난받아야 하며 기업들은 죄가 없다는 것이다. 이러한 것에는 반사회행위규정(ASBOs). 받아들일 수 있는 행위규칙, 정액벌금통지(FPN)나 질서위반벌금통지(PND)의 현장범칙금이 포함되어 있다, 2005년 1월 21일, 정부는 ASBOs와 유사한 기능의 3번 현장범칙금이나 유죄가 된 누구나 음주를 금지하는 체계를 발표했다. 내무부장관 헤이젤 블레어즈에 따르면 ‘이는 사람들을 신속하게 처벌할 수 있는 아이디어를 확립하고 있다.’고 한다.
Measures Targeting the Individual114
Alcohol policy reflects the ideological affinities of the Blair government including its tendency to define social problems in individual terms without reference to their social context, and to find solutions which focus on the behaviour of the individual. This correlates well to the alcohol industry’s focus on individual misuse of alcohol, which the government has adopted in the policies described above. At the heart of the policy is a range of measures aimed at the individual which suggest their blame for these problems and the industry’s innocence. These include on-the-spot fines in the form of fixed penalty notices (FPN) and penalty notices for disorder (PND),115 acceptable behaviour contracts, and anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs).116 On January 21st 2005, the government announced a system of drinking banning orders for anyone who had had three on-the-spot fines or convictions, to function similarly to ASBOs.117 According to Home Office Minister Hazel Blears, ‘it is very much built on the idea that it will be a swift punishment for people.’118
정책에의 기업 참여
언제나 자기들의 이익을 중점으로 하지만 어느 정도 사회적 책임에 대해 노력하는 기업들을 정책결성에 참여하게하는 것은 영국의 신노동당 정부의 기업편향우선정책에 잘 맞았다. 위의 예에서 볼 수 있듯이, 알콜운동단체나 지지그룹, 공공의료전문가들은 이런 부적절한 엄청난 영향력이 디아지오와 기업체들이 기업의 필요에 따라 정책참여에 참여하여 건강문제가 심각한 위기에 처하게 되었다고 믿고 있다. 사회측면조직의 정책에 대한 영향력에 대해 글로발알콜정책연맹은 다음처럼 말했다.
‘사회측면조직이 정책결정에서 동등한 위치에 있다는 그들의 관점은 알콜산업의 상업적 이익을 선호하거나 공평하지 못한 테이블로 가져갔다는 증거를 인식하지 못하게 했다.’
Corporate Involvement in Policy
The involvement in policy formulation given to companies, whose interests will always focus on profit however much they are committed to social responsibility, fits in well with the business-oriented priorities of Britain’s New Labour government. As shown in the above examples, alcohol campaigning and support groups as well as public health experts believe that this amount of influence is inappropriate where a serious health issue is at stake, and that Diageo and the industry bodies it is involved in are dictated by corporate needs. On the influence of social aspect organisations on policy, the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance state that,
‘the view of Social Aspect Organisations that they have an equal place at the policy table fails to recognise that the evidence that they bring to the table is not impartial and favours the commercial interests of the beverage alcohol industry.’119
———————————————————————-
References
1 Jo Revill, ‘Mid-life drinkers who booze at home risk disease,’ The Observer, 23.01.05 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1396586,00.html – viewed 07.02.05
2 Chief Executive’s Review, Diageo Annual Review, 2004 http://web16729.vs.netbenefit.co.uk/c2.htm viewed 05.05.05
3 IBLF, ‘Diageo’ www.iblf.org/csr/csrwebassist.nsf/content/f1b2a3g4.html viewed 24.11.04
4 ibid.
5 IBLF, ‘Members’ www.iblf.org/csr/csrwebassist.nsf/content/f1b2a3.html viewed 24.11.04
6 ‘IBLF in action – principle branded programmes’ www.iblf.org/csr/csrwebassist.nsf/content/f1c2a3.html#1- viewed 24.11.04
7 The Human Capitalism Campaign, www.iblf.org/csr/csrwebassist.nsf/content/f1c2a3h4.html – viewed 24.11.04
8 Tomorrow’s People, 4th Floor, Rothermere House, 49-51 Cambridge Rd., Hastings East Sussex TN34 1DT 01424 718 491; http://fame.bvdep.com/cgi/template.dll?context=33Y78C&tpl=reportframe&bitnr=805522&pushlink=0
9 Tomorrow’s People Website, www.tomorrows-people.co.uk/company.htm – viewed 20.01.05
10 Andrew Clark, ‘Spirit of Healing,’ the Guardian 05.11.01,
http://society.guardian.co.uk/givinglist/story/0,,579397,00.html – viewed 25.01.05
11 Tomorrow’s People, www.tomorrows-people.co.uk/company.htm – viewed 20.01.05
12 Memorandum Submitted by Tomorrow’s People to the House of Commons Select Committee on Work and Pensions, April 2002, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmworpen/815/2050806.htm – viewed 09.02.05
13 Andrew Clark, ‘Spirit of Healing,’ the Guardian 05.11.01,
http://society.guardian.co.uk/givinglist/story/0,,579397,00.html – viewed 25.01.05
14 The Diageo Foundation, www.diageo.com/pageengine.asp?menu_id=0&site_id=4§ion_id=21&page_id=966
15 Disinfopedia, www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Edelman – viewed 20.01.05
16 Disinfopedia, www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Circulation_Expert%ED – viewed 20.01.05
17 John Merson, ‘A Trojan Horse?’, http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/122.html, viewed 28.11.04
18 Disinfopedia, www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Quinn_Gillespie_%26_Associates – viewed 24.01.05
19 Quinn Gillespie, www.quinngillespie.com/ – viewed 20.01.05
20 Ravi Chandiramani, ‘Diageo hires Reputation Inc and C&W to CSR accounts’, PR Week 31.10.03, www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=193821&site=1
21 United States Senate Office of Public Records http://sopr.senate.gov/ – viewed 15.02.05
22 Disinfopedia, www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Beer_Group_APPG – viewed 01.12.04
23 ‘Disabling the Public Interest:Alcohol Strategies and Policies in England,’ Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Institute for Alcohol Studies 2004 Issue 3 www.ias.org.uk/publications/alert/04issue3/alert0403_p6.html viewed 04.02.05
24 www.wig.co.uk/ viewed 29.11.04
25 www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
26 Congressional Wine Caucus www.radanovich.house.gov/wine/ – viewed 15.02.05
27 Millie Howie, ‘Keeping Wine on the Congressional Agenda,’ November/December 2001, www.practicalwinery.com/novdec01p9.htm – viewed 15.02.05
28 Wine America – the National Association of American Wineries, www.americanwineries.org/newsroom/caucuschildren.htm – viewed 24.01.05
29 ‘Congressional Wine Caucus Grows,’ the Crush, April 2002, www.cawg.org/pdf/crush02apr.pdf – viewed 25.01.05
30 ‘Lobbying by wine caucus is vivacious yet earnest,’ Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 23.03.00, www.radanovich.house.gov/wine/press/032300AVAreception.htm – viewed 24.01.05
31 Eurocare – Advocacy for the Prevention of Alcohol related harm in Europe, ‘the Beverage Alcohol Industry’s ‘Social Aspect Organisations: A Public Health Warning’ 2002 www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/02issue3/globe0203_index.html – viewed 15.02.05
32 Sally Jackman and Linda Hill, ‘Global Perspectives on Alcohol Marketing, New Zealand Drug Foundation,’ 26.05.03 www.adf.org.au/pdf/dyp/GlobalPerspectives_screen.pdf – viewed 24.01.05
33 ‘Paying the Piper: The Effect of Industry Funding on Alcohol Prevention Priorities’, 1996 www.cspinet.org/booze/ppstudy.html, – viewed 24.01.05
34 Eurocare – Advocacy for the Prevention of Alcohol related harm in Europe, ‘the Beverage Alcohol Industry’s ‘Social Aspect Organisations: A Public Health Warning’ 2002 www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/02issue3/globe0203_index.html – viewed 15.02.05
35 The Portman Group, www.portman-group.org.uk/about/121.asp – viewed 29.11.04
36 Disinfopedia, www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Portman_Group – viewed 22.11.04
37 The Portman Group, www.portman-group.org.uk/about/121.asp – viewed 29.11.04
38 Robin McKieDrink Like the French and Stay Alive, The Observer, 28.11.04 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1361282,00.html
39 ICAP website, ‘Executive Summary: Alcohol and Pleasure: A Health Perspective’, www.icap.org/download/all_pdfs/book_exec_summary_pdfs/alcohol_pleasure.pdf, last viewed 04.04.05
40 ICAP website, www.icap.org/ICAP/about_ICAP/sponsors/index.html – viewed 07.02.05
41 ICAP website, ‘Letter from the President’, www.icap.org/about_icap/about_icap.html
42 ICAP website, ‘ICAP approach: Patterns’, www.icap.org/ICAP/index.html – viewed 07.02.05
43 ICAP website, Issue 11, May 2002, Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits Worldwide, www.icap.org/download/all_pdfs/ICAP_Reports_English/report11.pdf, viewed 04.04.05
44 ICAP website, ‘Health Warning Labels’, Issue 3, 1997, www.icap.org/download/all_pdfs/ICAP_Reports_English/report3.pdf, last viewed 04.04.05
45 ICAP website, ‘Governemnt Policies on Alcohol and Pregnancy,’ Issue 6, January 1999, www.icap.org/pdf/report6.pdf – viewed 29.11.05
46 ‘Director’s Report to the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, September, 1995’ www.drugabuse.gov/DirReports/DirRep995/DirectorReport8.html, viewed 24.11.04
47 Hillary Abramson, ‘Big Alcohol puts on a Front’, Multinational Monitor, December 1998, http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98dec/front1.html, viewed 15.02.05
48 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention/International Center for Alcohol Policies, Joint Working Group on Terminology, Working Papers, www.icap.org/download/all_pdfs/Other_Publications/CSAP_ICAP_Terminology.pdf viewed 05.05.2005
49 ibid. (Preface Karol Kumpfer, PhD), p1
50 ibid. p8
51 ibid.p6
52 ibid.p6
53 ibid. pp14-15
54 The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP): What You Didn’t Know, David J. Hanson, PhD www.alcoholfacts.org/, viewed 25.11.04
55 ‘Paying for other people’s politics’, Doug Bandow, www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/protectionismpopulismandinterventionism/peoplespolitics.html
56 Testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, 20.06.95, www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ab629.html, viewed 25.11.04
57 The Amsterdam Group, www.amsterdamgroup.org/main.html viewed 29.11.04
58 The Amsterdam Group, www.amsterdamgroup.org/main.html viewed 29.11.04
59 The Globe, Issue 1 2002, Global Alcohol Policy Alliance, www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/02issue1/globe0201_p8.html viewed 29.11.04
60 Ethical Consumer Magazine, Issue 75 February-March 2002, Research Supplement, Beer Lager and Cider, p. 4 – 5. ECRA Publishing Limited issue 75 March 2002
61 Mature Enjoyment of Alcohol Society, www.meas.ie/ viewed 29.11.04
62 Diageo Annual Report 2004, www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R531.pdf – viewed 15.02.05
63 Diageo website, ‘Responsible Drinking’ www.diageo.com/pageengine.asp?menu_id=0&site_id=4§ion_id=21&page_id=46 viewed 24.11.04
64 Diageo website, ‘Diageo’s Policy on Alcohol Issues,’ www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R400.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
65 Diageo website, ‘Diageo’s Policy on Alcohol Issues,’ www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R400.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
66 Diageo Corporate Citizenship Report, 2004 www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R532.pdf p. 12 viewed 15.02.05
67 Diageo website, ‘Diageo’s Policy on Alcohol Issues,’ www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R400.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
68 ibid.
69 Diageo Code of Marketing Practice for Alcoholic Beverages, www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R401.pdf – viewed 15.02.05
70 The Portman Group, Code of Pratice on the Naming, Packaging and Distribution of Alcoholic Drinks, 2003 www.portman-group.org.uk/codeofpractice/152.asp – viewed 10.02.05
71 World Advertising Research Centre Limited, 9th Annual 1 day Conference, ‘Marketing Alcoholic Drinks,’ 28.09.04 http://store.warc.com/ProductInfo/3279.asp – viewed 10.02.05
72 The Portman Group, Code of Pratice on the Naming, Packaging and Distribution of Alcoholic Drinks, 2003 www.portman-group.org.uk/codeofpractice/152.asp – viewed 10.02.05
73 Alcohol Concern News, 19.07.04, www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/doc/813 – viewed 10.02.05
74 Sarah Hall, ‘New wave of sophisticated alcopops fuels teenage binge drinking,’ The Guardian 14.12.02 http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,859719,00.html – viewed 10.02.05
75 Diageo, Alcohol Education www.diageo.com/pageengine.asp?menu_id=0&site_id=4§ion_id=21&page_id=968 – viewed 10.02.05
76 Diageo Uruguay – Responsible Drinking Campaign www.diageo.com/pageengine.asp?menu_id=0&site_id=4§ion_id=21&page_id=733 – viewed 10.02.05
77 Guinness UDV – Responsible Drinking Campaign www.diageo.com/pageengine.asp?menu_id=0&site_id=4§ion_id=21&page_id=763 – viewed 10.02.05
78 Alcohol Education and Research Council www.aerc.org.uk/ – viewed 07.02.05
79 Diageo Corporate Citizenship Report 2004 www.diageo.com/download%5C3000—R532.pdf p.12 – viewed 10.02.05
80 Diageo Careers website, ‘Our culture,’ www.diageo-careers.com/loc_uk_ourculture.asp – viewed 15.02.05
81 TACADE Newsletter, Briefing December 2004, www.tacade.com/Resources/Newsletter.pdf – viewed 10.02.05
82 ‘Think B4 U drink!’ website, www.thinkbeforeyoudrink.com.au/ – viewed 15.02.05
83 The United Kingdom Parliament, Foreign and Commonwwealth Affairs, www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961118/text/61118w06.htm, last viewed 04.04.05
84 Julia Finch, ‘Drink Firm’s Shock for Bingers,’ The Guardian, 09.10.04, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1323368,00.html – viewed 10.02.05
85 Who’s Who 2004; www.diageo.com
86 Institute for Public Policy Research, Press Release 20.05.04, www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=307 – viewed 15.02.05
87 WHO declaration on young people and alcohol, 2001www.euro.who.int/AboutWHO/Policy/20030204_1 – viewed 07.02.05
88 Home Office, ODPM, DCMS, ‘Drinking Responsibly – the Government’s Proposals,’ January 2005, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/Alcohol_consult.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
89 www.epolitix.com/EN/Forums/DIAGEO+Great+Britain/ – viewed 07.02.05
90 Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, 7, Supply and Industry Responsibility, Cabinet Office 2004 www.strategy.gov.uk/su/alcohol/alcohol_harm07.htm viewed 26.01.05
91 Martin Plant, ‘Editorial: The Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England,’ British Medical Journal 17.04.04 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/328/7445/905 – viewed 07.02.05
92 Institute of Alcohol Studies, ‘Alcohol Alert,’ Issue 1 2004, www.ias.org.uk/publications/alert/04issue1/alert0401_p2.html -viewed 07.02.05
93 ibid.
94 Jo Revill, ‘Mid-life drinkers who booze at home risk disease,’ The Observer, 23.01.05 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1396586,00.html – viewed 07.02.05
95 Alcohol Concern, Alcohol Concern News, Editorial Comment 07.09.04 www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/doc/827 – viewed 07.02.05
96 Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘Under the Influence, The Guardian 20.11.04 www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1354076,00.html viewed 07.02.05
97 British Medical Journal ‘Editorial: Evidence based policy or policy based evidence?’ 17.04.04 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/328/7445/906 – viewed 05.12.04
98 Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘Under the Influence, The Guardian 20.11.04 www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1354076,00.html viewed 07.02.05
99 House of Lords Select Committee on the EU, Drinking and Driving, 2002, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldeucom/140/140.pdf – viewed 10.02.05
100 The Portman Group, ‘Promoting Responsible Drinking,’ www.portman-group.org.uk/campaigns/57.asp viewed 07.02.05
101 Hillary Abramson, ‘Big Alcohol Puts on a Front’ Multinational Monitor December 1998 http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98dec/front1.html viewed 05.02.05
102 Robin Room, ‘Disabling the Public Interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England,’ Addiction, Journal of the Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other drugs, September 2004 www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00803.x/full/ – viewed 07.02.05
103 ibid.
104 Licensing Act 2003, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030017.htm – viewed 07.02.05
105 Robin Room, ‘Disabling the Public Interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England,’ Addiction, Journal of the Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other drugs, September 2004 www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00803.x/full/ – viewed 07.02.05
106 Philip Johnston, ’24 hour drinking “will fuel crime”,’ The Telegraph 20.03.04 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/20/nbinge20.xml – viewed 07.02.05
107 Home Office, ODPM &DCMS, ‘Drinking Responsibly – the Government’s Proposals,’ January 2005, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/Alcohol_consult.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
108 Robin Room, ‘Disabling the Public Interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England,’ Addiction, Journal of the Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other drugs, September 2004 www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00803.x/full/ – viewed 07.02.05
109 Draft Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, DCMS, 23.03.04 www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4AF7A027-3D2B-484E-A5E7-27BD9313B2C7/0/040323licensingactdaft.pdf, p. 10 – viewed 07.02.05
110 ibid. p.65
111 ibid. p.95
112Alan Travis, ‘Drinkers Face Three Strikes Ban,’ The Guardian 22.01.2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1396155,00.html viewed 07.02.05
113 Alcohol Concern Press Release, ‘Government proposal to tackle binge drinking is a small step in the right direction, but not enough to make a difference, says Alcohol Concern,’ 21.01.05 www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/doc/897 – viewed 07.02.05
114 Peter Hetherington, ‘ASBOs are not just for Yobbos,’ The Guardian 08.09.2004 http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1298966,00.html – viewed 15.02.05
115 Home Office, ‘Penalty Notices for Disorder,’ 07.02.05
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/alcoholrelatedcrime/penaltynotices.html – viewed 07.02.05
116 Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England,p.57 www.strategy.gov.uk/su/alcohol/alcohol_harm07.htm – viewd 15.02.05
117 Home Office, ODPM, DCMS, ‘Drinking Responsibly – the Government’s Proposals,’ January 2005, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/Alcohol_consult.pdf – viewed 07.02.05
118 Alan Travis, ‘Drinkers Face Three Strikes Ban,’ The Guardian 22.01.2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1396155,00.html viewed 07.02.05
119 Global Alcohol Policy Alliance, Eurocare – Advocacy for the Prevention of Alcohol related harm in Europe, ‘the Beverage Alcohol Industry’s ‘Social Aspect Organisations: A Public Health Warning’
|
|
