What we know: Licensing of alcohol sales outlets offers local authorities one way to restrict outlet density and days/hours of sale, which are known to be effect levels of consumption (i.e., higher outlet density and greater days/hours of sale are associated with increased alcohol consumption) (Burton et al., 2017; Siegfried and Parry, 2019). Challenges persist around interpretation and enforcement of licensing regulations and questions of prioritisations (e.g., valuing economic priorities over public health concerns) (Jankhotkaew et al., 2022; Burton et al., 2017).

Examples of implementation: The Licensing Act 2003 in England required that all licensing decisions needed to examine evidence about specific outlets and consider licensing objectives, of which public health is not one (Burton et al., 2017). There is some data to suggest that the Licensing Act with its staggering of opening hours shifted violence later into the night rather than affecting total violence (Burton et al., 2017). While there are limited evaluations of the effects of licensing in England, local areas with more effective and stringent licensing approaches have seen some small additional reductions in alcohol-related hospital admissions (Burton et al., 2017).

Types of identified incentives: Subsidies via the excise duty system to encourage/discourage particular businesses or products (e.g., Small Breweries Relief); and/or tax incentives for the on-trade (e.g., differential beer duty or lower rate of VAT for draft beer).

What we know: There is limited but suggestive evidence that subsidies or tax-incentives of on-trade could have economic benefits for eligible businesses, but there is inconclusive or no reporting of evidence on consumption impacts (Hatchard et al., 2023).

Types of identified interventions: Training of server staff; responsible serving practices; security staff in bars; stricter policing and enforcement approaches; safety-oriented design of the premise (e.g., replacing glassware with safer alternatives; voluntary removal of the sale of high strength alcohol.

What we know: There is limited but suggestive evidence that multicomponent intervention programmes involving responsible beverage server training, house policies and stricter enforcement of licencing laws are effective in reducing alcohol-related assaults, traffic crashes and underage sales (Siegfried and Parry, 2019; Burton et al., 2017). Server training courses alone show some potential to reduce disorder but lack evidence of efficacy for reducing intoxication (Siegfried and Parry, 2019; Burton et al., 2017). Voluntary removal of high strength alcohol could reduce acute alcohol-related harm but this type of approach is easily undermined (Burton et al., 2017).

What we know: Voluntary and/or industry self-regulation approaches to restricting alcohol advertising and marketing are ineffective (Burton et al., 2017). Self-regulatory marketing codes for the alcohol industry have shown limited effectiveness, with evaluations indicating multiple violations of content guidelines (Burton et al., 2017).

What we know: Public drinking bans are not effective for reducing alcohol consumption or alcohol-related harm (Burton et al., 2017). While public drinking bans are typically designed to address crime and disorder, there is limited evidence to show that they impact public safety (there are some small increases in public perception of public safety) (Burton et al., 2017). There is also some evidence to suggest that these bans can negatively impact marginalised groups and displace them to potentially less safe places (Burton et al., 2017).