Some statements from the Portman Group about our evaluation of the “responsibility deal” on alcohol are seriously misleading.1The statement about our “track record of campaigning against voluntary agreements” is inaccurate. One of our first studies set out to understand the characteristics of effective voluntary agreements,2 which should be based on clearly defined, evidence based, and quantifiable targets; should push partners to go beyond “business as usual”; and should include penalties for not delivering the pledges. Our new findings show that the responsibility deal’s pledges do not meet these criteria.3 4The Portman Group also accuses us of ignoring “official government data showing the achievements of the responsibility deal.” We thoroughly and systematically examined available data provided by partners themselves about their activities, as well as evidence that any of these activities could have a positive impact on public health. Our conclusions were that any impact was likely to be limited, and that organisations had generally signed up to things they were already doing. Our findings regarding the one billion unit pledge support the Sheffield analysis.5The Portman Group also claims that our analyses of the activities of the Alcohol Network “undermine the vital work done to improve public health.” We fail to see how an analysis of whether the responsibility deal alcohol pledges will improve public health can undermine efforts to improve public health.Finally, because alcohol related harms continue to be a major and costly public health problem in England, we restate our conclusions that effective interventions must be at the forefront of any meaningful action and need to go beyond business as usual. The Public Health Responsibility Deal should be first and foremost about improving public health.NotesCite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2063