Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyse alcohol industry submissions to an Australian national parliamentary inquiry to understand the industry arguments and their implications for alcohol policy-making, and to test, for the first time, the applicability of Campbell and colleagues’ typology of framing mechanisms to alcohol industry submissions. We undertook a directed content analysis to code policy positions and arguments made by industry actors in the ten industry submissions, followed by thematic analysis to examine coded data for patterned responses according to the framing mechanisms. We identified four framing mechanisms: ‘equating’, ‘contesting’, ‘dichotomizing’, and ‘cropping’, which alcohol industry submitters used to highlight their corporate social responsibility efforts, industry leadership, self-regulation and community partnerships, while undermining effective evidence-based public health policy action. Industry submitters consistently used the inquiry as an opportunity to make arguments that supported maintenance of the regulatory ‘status quo’ and the continued inclusion of commercial actors as partners in policy decision-making. We identified heightened and direct attacks on public health evidence not previously seen within the Australian context. While examinations of frames remain important, stepping back and examining the framing mechanisms and actions employed can also offer insights about how to critique the discursive strategies—not just the specific arguments—being utilized by industry. From this critique, it is possible to (i) understand how some frames and arguments have gained acceptance, and others have not, and (ii) to respond to dominant frames and arguments by exposing the flaws in the discursive techniques that underpin them.