Alcohol-related harm costs the UK around £24.7 billion each year, making it a key priority for public health interventions. However, with alcohol forming the basis of many social activities in the UK, what is the impact of teetotalism on non-drinkers’ social wellbeing? Here, Dr Luke Munford and Dr Benjamin Walker outline their research on drinking and ‘social capital’, and what this means for public health policy.

• Non-drinkers in the UK face reduced opportunities for socialising, putting them at a disadvantage in terms of social capital.
• This disadvantage is particularly pronounced among those aged 35 and over.
• Public health policies to reduce alcohol consumption should be complemented by efforts to promote inclusive, alcohol-free social environments.

Social capital and it’s link to alcohol

Social capital – the networks, trust, and mutual support that bind communities – plays a vital role in individual and collective wellbeing. It’s linked to lower levels of loneliness, better mental and physical health, and stronger civic participation. Yet, in the UK, much of this social bonding still takes place in contexts where alcohol is central: the after-work pint, the family celebration, the weekend meetup at the pub.

With the UK spending a greater proportion of its healthcare budget on diseases caused by excess alcohol consumption than the OECD average, government strategies rightly aim to reduce alcohol consumption for public health and economic reasons. But what happens to individuals who choose not to drink? Our research shows that teetotallers in the UK pay a social capital penalty: they are significantly less likely to participate in social activities, particularly informal ones like meeting friends.

Using longitudinal data from the Understanding Society survey, we explored the relationship between alcohol consumption and five key indicators of social capital. The findings reveal a tension between the health benefits of not drinking and the social costs it can impose – especially in a society where drinking remains a social norm.

The evidence

We analysed data from over 17,000 UK adults, using robust longitudinal methods to explore how alcohol consumption relates to:

• Socialising with friends when desired
• Being active in an organisation (such as clubs, societies, or associations)
• Feeling lonely
• Number of close friends
• Bridging social capital (for instance, diversity in social networks)

We compared drinkers and non-drinkers and examined frequency of alcohol consumption – from daily to never.

Socialising: a clear penalty for non-drinkers

Non-drinkers had lower odds of reporting socialising when they felt like it compared to those who drank. This relationship held even after adjusting for personality, income, age, health, and past social behaviour. Importantly, the association was strongest in adults aged 35 and over and seen across both men and women.

This suggests that for many adults, particularly those in midlife and beyond, alcohol plays a key role in enabling social interaction. Choosing not to drink, whether for health, religious, cultural or personal reasons, can mean exclusion from common forms of informal socialising.

We found some evidence that those who drank monthly or less were less likely to be active in an organisation compared to those who drank four or more times per week. While this effect was smaller than the socialising gap, it points to broader limitations in the civic space for those who drink infrequently or not at all.

Encouragingly, not drinking was not associated with increased loneliness, fewer close friends, or lower levels of bridging social capital. In other words, teetotallers may face barriers to spontaneous or informal socialising, but this does not necessarily translate into isolation or less diverse social networks.

What does this mean for policy?

Alcohol reduction is an essential goal for improving population health. Yet if socialising in the UK continues to rely so heavily on alcohol, we risk unintentionally marginalising those who choose to abstain.

Our findings highlight two urgent policy needs:

Make social spaces more inclusive for non-drinkers. The 10 Year Health Plan includes an ambition from the government to support “innovative community-level organisations where they have shown promise in reducing alcohol harm”.

A key part of this is the shift from ‘sickness to prevention’, and there are clear links to alcohol reduction policies here.

Building on this goal, local authorities – working with community groups, employers, and cultural institutions – should do more to normalise and enable alcohol-free social events. Examples include “dry” pub nights or alcohol-free bars, community cafés and third spaces that host social events without alcohol, social prescribing and wellbeing programmes that explicitly include non-drinking activities and workplace social events that do not revolve around alcohol.

By broadening the definition of what a “social” space looks like, we can ensure non-drinkers are not excluded from bonding opportunities.

Support drinkers to cut back without social penalties. Our study also found no significant differences in social capital between frequent and moderate drinkers. People who drank two to four times per month were just as socially connected as those who drank four or more times per week.

This suggests that cutting down on alcohol does not harm social capital – a crucial finding for public health messaging. Campaigns like Dry January or moderation tools like Drinkaware can emphasise that reducing alcohol use need not lead to social isolation.

Governments and charities can support this message by funding peer-led initiatives that promote alcohol-free socialising and normalise moderation. The 10 Year Health Plan outlines strategies to support innovation in no- and low-alcohol drinks, which provides a useful starting point. Public health and awareness campaigns around reductions in alcohol use can help provide the market for these products and help with the mission to shift from sickness to prevention.

Age and generational change

Interestingly, we did not find strong evidence of a socialising penalty for non-drinkers under 35. This may reflect generational shifts: younger adults are less likely to drink than older generations and more likely to socialise in mixed or alcohol-free settings.

For this reason, interventions to support non-drinkers should prioritise older age groups, where the social capital penalty is greatest. This reflects research from The University of Manchester into ‘Deaths of Despair’ (DoD) – deaths due to drugs, alcohol, and suicide – which found the most common cause of DoD among over 45’s was alcohol-related mortality.

From public health to social structures – an integrated approach

Alcohol’s status as a “social glue” in the UK carries unintended consequences for those who choose to abstain.

While public health rightly targets reduced alcohol consumption, we must also attend to the social structures that exclude non-drinkers. Without deliberate action to foster alcohol-free social opportunities, we risk perpetuating inequalities in social capital.

Our findings show that it’s entirely possible to drink less and still connect, participate, and thrive. But we must build a society where those opportunities are genuinely open to all.