A MULTINATIONAL drinks giant has been accused of trying to “buy” academic research from a university to back up its flagship social responsibility scheme.
Diageo wanted academics to show how “effective and worthwhile” its Learning for Life (LFL) initiative had been, but a Scottish higher education institution snubbed the offer.
The company is a global leader in its field, renowned for brands such as Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Baileys and Guinness.
It has billions of pounds in global revenues and is listed on the FTSE 100 Index and the New York Stock Exchange.
However, the drinks industry is controversial and companies tend to have extensive corporate social responsibility activities.
According to the Diageo website, LFL is a program “designed to inspire and transform the lives of people throughout the different communities”.
It focuses on adult education and provides training and skills in hospitality, retail, entrepreneurship and bartending.
Emails obtained by the Sunday Herald show that Diageo was interested in getting university researchers to give the scheme a seal of approval.
Diageo sent its brief to the Edinburgh-based Interface organisation - a matchmaking service for business and universities – which contacted the University of the West of Scotland (UWS).
The pitch stated Diageo already had “independent evaluation” of LFL and claimed the scheme was increasing the “confidence, motivation and aspirations” of participants.
However, it added: “Diageo would like to work with a university partner to extend this research to build on the initial data and demonstrate further how effective and worthwhile Diageo’s investment is in the initiative.”
Internal UWS email exchanges reveal that the approach was greeted with scepticism.
One academic wrote: “It would appear Diageo already have a rather fixed view of the effectiveness of Learning 4 Life, which is always something of a ‘red flag’ from my experience.
“As I understand it, sustained behaviour change is very difficult to facilitate (and evidence) through short-term education based interventions, which is what L4L appears to be.”
Another researcher wrote: “I think it would be interesting to look at their data and the programme but perhaps any proper neutrality on the part of the researcher might be unwelcome. From a critical social policy perspective, I can also think of a few doubts about a multinational alcohol company setting up privately run welfare-to-work schemes.”
A third wrote: “I do not think we should be involved in this for all the reasons stated.”
A UWS spokesperson said the university had not registered an interest in the project, but added that the views expressed by the researchers were personal opinions.
Alison Douglas, Chief Executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, criticised the drinks company:
“The alcohol industry has a long history of buying research which supports their interests and claims. This latest request from Diageo appears to be more of the same.
“The World Health Organisation is clear; educational initiatives have limited impact on alcohol consumption. They identify the three most effective actions as being increasing price, reducing availability and restricting marketing of alcohol.”
Professor David Miller, co-author of a new study which examines the alcohol industry’s lobbying activities, said: “The material from Diageo shows worrying signs that what they were after was not genuine research but material that could be presented as if it was genuine for public relations and lobbying purposes.”
A Diageo spokesperson said: “We have sought to partner with a reputable higher education institution in Scotland to conduct research into our Learning for Life programme specifically to gather objective and reliable evidence to help us judge how effective the initiative is. This is considered best practice and to suggest this is anything other than legitimate and independent research is entirely false.
“Since its introduction in January 2014, Learning for Life has been inspiring and transforming lives in communities where our business operates by equipping young adults for careers in bartending and hospitality.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article