While the brewer touts its commitment to safety, critics question the motives behind corporate-led public health initiatives.
By Jonathan Mbiriyamveka
HARARE, Zimbabwe – In the ballroom of the Rainbow Towers, the message from beverage giant Delta Corporation was one of unwavering responsibility.
At its recent “Above the Influence Showcase,” student innovators were celebrated for promoting alcohol moderation, and company executives spoke of their duty to community safety.
Yet, outside the glow of the event, a more complex debate is brewing: Is a leading alcohol producer the right entity to lead the charge against alcohol-related harm?
For Delta, the answer is a resolute YES.
In a detailed response to critical inquiries, Delta Corporation’s General Manager – Corporate Affairs Patricia Murambinda, framed the company’s “Smart Drinking” initiatives as both an ethical and a strategic imperative.
“Responsible consumption is not in conflict with business sustainability — it is essential to it,” Murambinda stated.
“Irresponsible consumption harms individuals, families, communities — and ultimately, the reputation and sustainability of the industry itself.”
She emphasized that Delta’s campaigns are aligned with global standards from the World Health Organization and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and form a core part of its parent company AB InBev’s commitments.
The company’s role, she clarified, is not to tell adults not to drink, but to ensure that drinking happens safely, focusing on preventing underage consumption, drunk driving, and harmful use.
“If companies like Delta do not take leadership on alcohol responsibility, the gap widens,” Murambinda argued.
“We believe it is better — and more ethical — to be actively involved in prevention, education, and awareness, rather than ignoring the issues.”
However, public health advocates and industry critics see a fundamental conflict of interest that no amount of corporate social responsibility (CSR) can resolve.
“This is a classic case of ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’,” said Dr. Tendai Mupfuka, an independent public health researcher.
“The overarching strategy serves the industry, not public health. It’s called ‘preemption’—by creating its own moderate programs, the industry aims to ward off more effective, independent government regulations, such as stricter advertising bans or higher sin taxes.”
Critics argue that the core message of “moderation” inherently normalizes alcohol consumption, which ultimately benefits the company’s bottom line.
They question whether the budget for these CSR exercises can compete with the company’s marketing expenditure, which is designed to drive sales and consumption.
“The fundamental conflict is irreconcilable,” said Prosper Ncube of the advocacy group Harare Safe Streets.
“Delta’s shareholders expect revenue growth. How does one grow the beer market while sincerely convincing people to drink less?”
In response to these claims, Murambinda stressed that Delta’s programs are not developed in a marketing vacuum but are “co-created” with universities, road-safety experts, and NGOs to ensure they are “evidence-based and community-driven — not marketing-driven.”
She also pushed back on the notion that the campaigns are for public relations, stating, “This is not about image — it is about impact. Delta invests consistently in smart-drinking programmes every year, regardless of public praise.”
For the students at the showcase, the philosophical debate is secondary to the tangible platform. “We need funding and a stage to get our life-saving message out,” said one student participant. “If Delta provides that, we see it as a net positive.”
The dialogue itself underscores the challenging terrain of modern public health, where corporate power, community need, and ethical boundaries increasingly intersect.
As Delta continues its campaign for a “moderate” future, and critics continue to question its motives, one thing is clear: in the effort to shape Zimbabwe’s drinking culture, the battle for influence is being waged on multiple fronts.
About Author
