Challenging, co-operating and splitting: a qualitative analysis of how the trade press responded to cumulative impact policies in England and Wales

Abstract

Introduction: Cumulative impact policies (CIPs) increase English and Welsh local authority powers to regulate licences to sell alcohol. Commercial actors’ responses to CIPs potentially affect implementation and impacts. An analysis of the trade press provides perspectives on how commercial actors respond to this intervention.

Methods: Qualitative, thematic analysis of trade press articles (published 2003–2016, n = 6 trade journals) focusing on depictions and responses to CIPs, including strategies for commercial actors engaging with the intervention.

Results: Included articles (n = 257) provided both positive, but more typically, negative depictions of CIPs. CIPs were criticised for being unfair and an economic threat. Legal challenges to CIPs were at times advocated. Partnership and dialogue with local authority stakeholders were presented as a means by which licence applicants could promote their commercial interests in areas where CIPs were implemented, or as an alternative to regulatory interventions such as CIPs. Some alcohol retailers hoped CIPs could protect their businesses from market competition.

Conclusions: Commercial actors do not respond uniformly to alcohol regulation. This study of CIPs found that at times different commercial interests could be served by directly challenging the intervention or strategically co-operating with implementers. Implementation and evaluation of such interventions should consider commercial actors’ responses.

Keywords:

• Alcohol policy
• cumulative impact policy
• public health
• trade press analysis

Note

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Mark Petticrew and Dr Niamh Fitzgerald for their helpful comments on a draft of this paper.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1 The responsible authorities include the licensing authority and the leads from the police, fire and rescue, health and safety, environmental health, planning, child protection, trading standards, immigration enforcement and public health. (Martineau et al., 2013).

Additional information

Funding

This research is funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research (SPHR) The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. SPHR is a partnership between the Universities of Sheffield, Bristol, Cambridge, Exeter, UCL; The London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; the LiLaC collaboration between the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster and Fuse; The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a collaboration between Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside Universities.