Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

Publication

« Back to publication

Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

Executive Summary

Background and method

NHS Health Scotland commissioned BMRB Social Research to conduct a study of smoking and smoking policies in the workplace on behalf of the Scottish Executive. The research was one of a series of studies commissioned to support the Scottish Executive consultation on smoking in public places.

The study involved two stages. First, there was a quantitative survey of those responsible for developing and implementing smoking policies in 1600 workplaces in Scotland. This was followed by qualitative research with managers and staff in 17 of the workplaces that had taken part in the survey.

Findings

This summary draws together data from the quantitative and qualitative components. However, it should be noted when considering the findings, that the quantitative interviews were with managers, whilst the qualitative research included both managers and other employees. This means that the two strands of the research captured different viewpoints.

Attitudes to smoking

The qualitative research indicated that smoking was viewed very negatively by both smokers and non-smokers, due to concerns about comfort and health. While the quantitative survey found that almost all of those responsible for smoking policies believed passive smoking carried health risks (88%), the qualitative research revealed that there was a great deal of uncertainty about the real risks associated both with smoking and with breathing in second-hand smoke.

Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work

The quantitative research focused on the benefits and negative consequences of smoking policies and found that managers could see the health benefits of implementing a smoking ban or smoking restrictions in the workplace. There was widespread acceptance of the health risks associated with passive smoking, a factor which might facilitate the implementation of smoking policies. Productivity was seen as more likely to be improved than reduced by a smoking ban, although feelings were more mixed about the impact of smoking restrictions.

There was some evidence of support for a smoking ban, since 89% were able to cite one or more benefits, and only 11% could see no benefits at all. There was, however, evidence of a preference for smoking restrictions over a ban, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector and amongst respondents from organisations without a smoking ban currently in place.

The main barrier to a total ban was the fear of confrontation with staff, and it was believed that this could be mitigated by implementing a restriction rather than a ban. This anticipated barrier contrasts with the finding that, for existing policies, there was less evidence of non-compliance with a full ban than with restrictions. It is possible, therefore, that these would be barriers to the initial implementation of a policy, rather than the ongoing enforcement. Lack of resources was a further barrier for smaller organisations.

The qualitative research found that attitudes to smoking at work were underpinned by the concepts of fairness and choice, with strong support for the perceived rights of both smokers and non-smokers. There was also a great deal of hostility to measures which were seen as being reminiscent of a 'big brother' state.

The issue regarding the effects of smoking at work on productivity was raised in the quantitative survey and debated further within the qualitative research. Whilst some agreed that productivity might be improved by reducing smoking, others worried about the effect of doing so on smokers' efficiency.

Respondents' views of smoking in the workplace were also influenced by their desire to be able to smoke when they socialised in pubs or bars, or a sense that it would not be natural for bars and pubs not to be smoky.

Smoking policies in the workplace

The quantitative research found that three in four workplaces (77%) reported having an employee smoking policy, although policies for members of the general public (where applicable) were slightly more common (82%). Workplaces that were part of SME organisations were less likely to have either an employee or general public smoking policy than those in large organisations. The likelihood of having either policy also decreased as the number of employees at the workplace decreased. Over half of employee policies (55%) were not written policies, particularly those in SME workplaces (64%). The majority of employee smoking policies were created prior to May 2000 (59%), and older policies were less likely to be formalised in writing.

Half of workplaces (48%) banned smoking by employees anywhere on the premises. Three in ten (28%) restricted smoking to designated areas or smoking rooms and only 1% had a policy allowing employees to smoke anywhere on the premises. Two in ten (22%) had no employee smoking policy at all.

The smaller, indoor-based, less manual sectors, such as retail and wholesale and finance and real estate, were most likely to implement a complete ban on employee smoking. In contrast, workplaces from the manufacturing and leisure and hospitality sectors, traditionally manual, indoor and site-based organisations, were most likely to have policies that restricted smoking by employees to smoking rooms or designated areas. Those in the traditionally manual, outdoor, off-site sectors such as transport, construction and agriculture were least likely to have a policy in place at all for employees, and were also least likely to have a policy for the general public.

Workplaces with fewer smokers were more likely to have a complete smoking ban, whereas those with more smokers were more likely either to restrict smoking or to have no policy at all. Most workplaces with a policy allowed staff to take smoking breaks (85%), although half (50%) allowed smoking only during official breaks. Workplaces with more non-manual, off-site and outdoor work were more likely to permit smoking while working or during unscheduled smoking breaks.

The qualitative interviews with staff and managers showed that stated policies were not always followed in practice, but that all workplaces, whether or not they had a formal policy, had 'understood' rules about where and when employees could smoke.

The reasons for introducing a smoking policy, as discussed in the qualitative study, ranged from the desires of managers, staff or customers, to instructions from a head office or as the result of a company takeover.

The qualitative research found that the following factors appeared to help or hinder the introduction of smoking policies; the size and culture of the business; the individual style of managers; whether consultation was carried out; space and layout of the premises; staff attitudes to smoking and to their managers; and customers' expectations.

Provisions in areas where smoking is not banned

A third of workplaces (33%) required employees to work in areas where smoking was not banned, rising to six in ten (60%) of workplaces in the leisure and hospitality sector.

Of the workplaces with areas where smoking was permitted, eight out of ten ventilated at least some of the smoking areas (81%). The ventilation, however, tended to be by 'natural' methods, such as opening a window. Workplaces in the manufacturing and leisure and hospitality sectors were more likely to use mechanical ventilation. There was a widespread belief that ventilation reduced the health risks of passive smoking, and this might act as a strong disincentive to implement a smoking ban in the workplace.

In the qualitative research, staff who expressed greatest discontent with smoking policies in their workplace were either non-smokers who disliked the fact that smokers were allowed to smoke near them, or smokers who wanted smoking restrictions in order to help them to quit, or to reduce the smell. Concerns were also raised about health and safety, particularly where smoking was allowed in or near the kitchen.

Views about smoking rooms varied. Some staff felt that it was their right to have a smoking room indoors, while others expressed dislike for a smoky atmosphere and preferred to smoke outside instead.

Policy implementation, communication and enforcement

The quantitative research found that workplaces with a policy tended to rely on verbal methods of communication when informing employees of their smoking policy, with four in ten (42%) relying solely on this method. Large organisations were much more likely than SME organisations to include the smoking policy as a condition of employment and to signpost or clearly mark smoking areas.

Despite this limited level of formal policy communication, the majority of respondents felt that there was very little non-compliance with the employee smoking policy (90% said rarely or never). Policy enforcement tended to be informal, with a manager or another member of staff asking the employee to stop smoking. Organisations that were more likely to have the policy as a condition of employment were also more likely to take disciplinary action against those who failed to comply with the policy. This included larger organisations and those from the manufacturing and construction sectors. Almost all indicated that employees complied with the policy following enforcement.

However, it was clear in the qualitative interviews that informal communications about smoking rules had a considerable influence on smoking behaviour and adherence to smoking policies.

The qualitative case studies also showed a general acceptance of smoking policies or smoking rules. However, although both staff and managers viewed some 'rule bending' as both normal and acceptable, it was felt that contraventions that 'overstepped the mark' should be acted on immediately.

The issue of divisions between smokers and non-smokers was not raised often and only emerged as a problem in the following circumstances: where smokers were inconsiderate in shared space; where different types of worker had different provision for smoking or had a different policy; and where the policy was introduced too quickly or without much consultation.

Smoking cessation support

Smoking cessation support was only offered by one in ten organisations (12%), although this rose to two thirds (64%) of the largest workplaces. In the survey, respondents explained this in terms of lack of demand, or expressed the view that provision of cessation support was not an employer's responsibility. Resources needed to provide smoking cessation support were also identified as an issue.

Respondents were unable to identify what would help organisations to provide smoking cessation support. The qualitative research also indicated that staff were not always aware of the cessation support offered by their company or the smoking cessation services available in the community. Therefore, if the provision of cessation support were to be used to facilitate the introduction of workplace smoking policies or legislation, awareness of smoking cessation services among both employers and employees would need to be raised.

However, it was clear that staff as well as managers did not believe that providing cessation support was really the duty of the employer. They felt that it was good when the employer gave assistance but thought that it was really the duty of government to do so. Since the Scottish Executive currently funds cessation services, employers need to be encouraged to refer their staff to these services.

Policy initiatives and legislation

In the survey, the most widely accepted facilitator to policy implementation was legislation. Whilst only around a third were aware of SHAW (28%), the Voluntary Charter (36% of those affected) or the Maxwell Bill (38%), seven in ten respondents (72%) thought that legislation would be necessary to assist the implementation of smoking restrictions in the workplace.

Support for legislation to restrict employee smoking was slightly higher (82%) than support for legislation to ban smoking (71%). The differential between support for a ban and support for restrictions was particularly striking in workplaces with a higher proportion of smokers, and in the leisure and hospitality, and transport and storage sectors. However, although support for legislation for a total ban amongst these sectors was low, the majority still supported legislation for some restrictions.

Only one in twenty (5%) of respondents indicated that their organisation did not currently have a policy restricting smoking and that they were also opposed to legislation to restrict employee smoking. This indicates that there is only a small core of employers and managers who would need to be persuaded of the need for this type of policy or for legislation. The greatest resistance to legislation is likely to be encountered amongst small retail outlets and smaller businesses in leisure and hospitality, for whom resourcing issues and concern over a loss of custom are likely to be of greatest concern. However, opposition to legislation was not restricted to particular sectors, but was spread across workplaces in all sectors, including both SME and larger organisations.

Two in ten respondents (20%) indicated both that their workplaces did not have a current smoking ban and that they were opposed to such legislation, indicating a larger residual core of employers and managers who would be opposed to legislation to ban smoking. This opposition was found across all types of workplace, but was greatest among those with the highest proportion of smokers in the workplace.

The qualitative research indicated that respondents' views about legislation were not determined simply by their attitude to the health risks associated with smoking, the policy that they would like to see in their own workplace, or their current situation at work. Rather, their attitudes were influenced more by their level of happiness with their current situation and how they thought other staff would react to changes. In addition, they considered the possible effect on places where they socialised. They also demonstrated strong resistance to a perception of 'big brother forcing' all businesses to adopt the same policy.

When discussing who should introduce any legislation, respondents who favoured the Scottish Executive were most concerned about inconsistency or unfairness from policies varying across the country. Respondents who thought that the Scottish Executive should delegate powers to local authorities were more concerned about inflexibility, or believed that new policies would be accepted more easily if implemented in this way.

Conclusions

This study found that most workplaces currently have smoking policies for employees in place. In addition, there was widespread support for smoking restrictions and legislation, and, together, these factors should facilitate the implementation of any future legislation on smoking in public places. However, support for legislation should be interpreted within the context of continuing doubt amongst employers and employees about the true health risks of passive smoking, and the somewhat flexible way existing policies work in practice. In addition, businesses and individuals have considerable fears, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector, and smaller organisations. For these types of business, fears tend to centre on potential loss of trade or profit, and also on the resources needed to implement such a policy.
Smoking restrictions are likely to meet less resistance from businesses than a total ban. However, there are practical barriers for smaller businesses without the space to allocate as smoking areas, which may make a total ban easier to manage for some. Furthermore, despite managers' perceptions that introducing a full ban would cause greater conflict with staff, the experience of those with an existing ban suggests that, once the policy is established, there are lower levels of non-compliance with a ban than restrictions, making the policy easier to enforce.

Executive Summary

Background and method

NHS Health Scotland commissioned BMRB Social Research to conduct a study of smoking and smoking policies in the workplace on behalf of the Scottish Executive. The research was one of a series of studies commissioned to support the Scottish Executive consultation on smoking in public places.

The study involved two stages. First, there was a quantitative survey of those responsible for developing and implementing smoking policies in 1600 workplaces in Scotland. This was followed by qualitative research with managers and staff in 17 of the workplaces that had taken part in the survey.

Findings

This summary draws together data from the quantitative and qualitative components. However, it should be noted when considering the findings, that the quantitative interviews were with managers, whilst the qualitative research included both managers and other employees. This means that the two strands of the research captured different viewpoints.

Attitudes to smoking

The qualitative research indicated that smoking was viewed very negatively by both smokers and non-smokers, due to concerns about comfort and health. While the quantitative survey found that almost all of those responsible for smoking policies believed passive smoking carried health risks (88%), the qualitative research revealed that there was a great deal of uncertainty about the real risks associated both with smoking and with breathing in second-hand smoke.

Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work

The quantitative research focused on the benefits and negative consequences of smoking policies and found that managers could see the health benefits of implementing a smoking ban or smoking restrictions in the workplace. There was widespread acceptance of the health risks associated with passive smoking, a factor which might facilitate the implementation of smoking policies. Productivity was seen as more likely to be improved than reduced by a smoking ban, although feelings were more mixed about the impact of smoking restrictions.

There was some evidence of support for a smoking ban, since 89% were able to cite one or more benefits, and only 11% could see no benefits at all. There was, however, evidence of a preference for smoking restrictions over a ban, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector and amongst respondents from organisations without a smoking ban currently in place.

The main barrier to a total ban was the fear of confrontation with staff, and it was believed that this could be mitigated by implementing a restriction rather than a ban. This anticipated barrier contrasts with the finding that, for existing policies, there was less evidence of non-compliance with a full ban than with restrictions. It is possible, therefore, that these would be barriers to the initial implementation of a policy, rather than the ongoing enforcement. Lack of resources was a further barrier for smaller organisations.

The qualitative research found that attitudes to smoking at work were underpinned by the concepts of fairness and choice, with strong support for the perceived rights of both smokers and non-smokers. There was also a great deal of hostility to measures which were seen as being reminiscent of a 'big brother' state.

The issue regarding the effects of smoking at work on productivity was raised in the quantitative survey and debated further within the qualitative research. Whilst some agreed that productivity might be improved by reducing smoking, others worried about the effect of doing so on smokers' efficiency.

Respondents' views of smoking in the workplace were also influenced by their desire to be able to smoke when they socialised in pubs or bars, or a sense that it would not be natural for bars and pubs not to be smoky.

Smoking policies in the workplace

The quantitative research found that three in four workplaces (77%) reported having an employee smoking policy, although policies for members of the general public (where applicable) were slightly more common (82%). Workplaces that were part of SME organisations were less likely to have either an employee or general public smoking policy than those in large organisations. The likelihood of having either policy also decreased as the number of employees at the workplace decreased. Over half of employee policies (55%) were not written policies, particularly those in SME workplaces (64%). The majority of employee smoking policies were created prior to May 2000 (59%), and older policies were less likely to be formalised in writing.

Half of workplaces (48%) banned smoking by employees anywhere on the premises. Three in ten (28%) restricted smoking to designated areas or smoking rooms and only 1% had a policy allowing employees to smoke anywhere on the premises. Two in ten (22%) had no employee smoking policy at all.

The smaller, indoor-based, less manual sectors, such as retail and wholesale and finance and real estate, were most likely to implement a complete ban on employee smoking. In contrast, workplaces from the manufacturing and leisure and hospitality sectors, traditionally manual, indoor and site-based organisations, were most likely to have policies that restricted smoking by employees to smoking rooms or designated areas. Those in the traditionally manual, outdoor, off-site sectors such as transport, construction and agriculture were least likely to have a policy in place at all for employees, and were also least likely to have a policy for the general public.

Workplaces with fewer smokers were more likely to have a complete smoking ban, whereas those with more smokers were more likely either to restrict smoking or to have no policy at all. Most workplaces with a policy allowed staff to take smoking breaks (85%), although half (50%) allowed smoking only during official breaks. Workplaces with more non-manual, off-site and outdoor work were more likely to permit smoking while working or during unscheduled smoking breaks.

The qualitative interviews with staff and managers showed that stated policies were not always followed in practice, but that all workplaces, whether or not they had a formal policy, had 'understood' rules about where and when employees could smoke.

The reasons for introducing a smoking policy, as discussed in the qualitative study, ranged from the desires of managers, staff or customers, to instructions from a head office or as the result of a company takeover.

The qualitative research found that the following factors appeared to help or hinder the introduction of smoking policies; the size and culture of the business; the individual style of managers; whether consultation was carried out; space and layout of the premises; staff attitudes to smoking and to their managers; and customers' expectations.

Provisions in areas where smoking is not banned

A third of workplaces (33%) required employees to work in areas where smoking was not banned, rising to six in ten (60%) of workplaces in the leisure and hospitality sector.

Of the workplaces with areas where smoking was permitted, eight out of ten ventilated at least some of the smoking areas (81%). The ventilation, however, tended to be by 'natural' methods, such as opening a window. Workplaces in the manufacturing and leisure and hospitality sectors were more likely to use mechanical ventilation. There was a widespread belief that ventilation reduced the health risks of passive smoking, and this might act as a strong disincentive to implement a smoking ban in the workplace.

In the qualitative research, staff who expressed greatest discontent with smoking policies in their workplace were either non-smokers who disliked the fact that smokers were allowed to smoke near them, or smokers who wanted smoking restrictions in order to help them to quit, or to reduce the smell. Concerns were also raised about health and safety, particularly where smoking was allowed in or near the kitchen.

Views about smoking rooms varied. Some staff felt that it was their right to have a smoking room indoors, while others expressed dislike for a smoky atmosphere and preferred to smoke outside instead.

Policy implementation, communication and enforcement

The quantitative research found that workplaces with a policy tended to rely on verbal methods of communication when informing employees of their smoking policy, with four in ten (42%) relying solely on this method. Large organisations were much more likely than SME organisations to include the smoking policy as a condition of employment and to signpost or clearly mark smoking areas.

Despite this limited level of formal policy communication, the majority of respondents felt that there was very little non-compliance with the employee smoking policy (90% said rarely or never). Policy enforcement tended to be informal, with a manager or another member of staff asking the employee to stop smoking. Organisations that were more likely to have the policy as a condition of employment were also more likely to take disciplinary action against those who failed to comply with the policy. This included larger organisations and those from the manufacturing and construction sectors. Almost all indicated that employees complied with the policy following enforcement.

However, it was clear in the qualitative interviews that informal communications about smoking rules had a considerable influence on smoking behaviour and adherence to smoking policies.

The qualitative case studies also showed a general acceptance of smoking policies or smoking rules. However, although both staff and managers viewed some 'rule bending' as both normal and acceptable, it was felt that contraventions that 'overstepped the mark' should be acted on immediately.

The issue of divisions between smokers and non-smokers was not raised often and only emerged as a problem in the following circumstances: where smokers were inconsiderate in shared space; where different types of worker had different provision for smoking or had a different policy; and where the policy was introduced too quickly or without much consultation.

Smoking cessation support

Smoking cessation support was only offered by one in ten organisations (12%), although this rose to two thirds (64%) of the largest workplaces. In the survey, respondents explained this in terms of lack of demand, or expressed the view that provision of cessation support was not an employer's responsibility. Resources needed to provide smoking cessation support were also identified as an issue.

Respondents were unable to identify what would help organisations to provide smoking cessation support. The qualitative research also indicated that staff were not always aware of the cessation support offered by their company or the smoking cessation services available in the community. Therefore, if the provision of cessation support were to be used to facilitate the introduction of workplace smoking policies or legislation, awareness of smoking cessation services among both employers and employees would need to be raised.

However, it was clear that staff as well as managers did not believe that providing cessation support was really the duty of the employer. They felt that it was good when the employer gave assistance but thought that it was really the duty of government to do so. Since the Scottish Executive currently funds cessation services, employers need to be encouraged to refer their staff to these services.

Policy initiatives and legislation

In the survey, the most widely accepted facilitator to policy implementation was legislation. Whilst only around a third were aware of SHAW (28%), the Voluntary Charter (36% of those affected) or the Maxwell Bill (38%), seven in ten respondents (72%) thought that legislation would be necessary to assist the implementation of smoking restrictions in the workplace.

Support for legislation to restrict employee smoking was slightly higher (82%) than support for legislation to ban smoking (71%). The differential between support for a ban and support for restrictions was particularly striking in workplaces with a higher proportion of smokers, and in the leisure and hospitality, and transport and storage sectors. However, although support for legislation for a total ban amongst these sectors was low, the majority still supported legislation for some restrictions.

Only one in twenty (5%) of respondents indicated that their organisation did not currently have a policy restricting smoking and that they were also opposed to legislation to restrict employee smoking. This indicates that there is only a small core of employers and managers who would need to be persuaded of the need for this type of policy or for legislation. The greatest resistance to legislation is likely to be encountered amongst small retail outlets and smaller businesses in leisure and hospitality, for whom resourcing issues and concern over a loss of custom are likely to be of greatest concern. However, opposition to legislation was not restricted to particular sectors, but was spread across workplaces in all sectors, including both SME and larger organisations.

Two in ten respondents (20%) indicated both that their workplaces did not have a current smoking ban and that they were opposed to such legislation, indicating a larger residual core of employers and managers who would be opposed to legislation to ban smoking. This opposition was found across all types of workplace, but was greatest among those with the highest proportion of smokers in the workplace.

The qualitative research indicated that respondents' views about legislation were not determined simply by their attitude to the health risks associated with smoking, the policy that they would like to see in their own workplace, or their current situation at work. Rather, their attitudes were influenced more by their level of happiness with their current situation and how they thought other staff would react to changes. In addition, they considered the possible effect on places where they socialised. They also demonstrated strong resistance to a perception of 'big brother forcing' all businesses to adopt the same policy.

When discussing who should introduce any legislation, respondents who favoured the Scottish Executive were most concerned about inconsistency or unfairness from policies varying across the country. Respondents who thought that the Scottish Executive should delegate powers to local authorities were more concerned about inflexibility, or believed that new policies would be accepted more easily if implemented in this way.

Conclusions

This study found that most workplaces currently have smoking policies for employees in place. In addition, there was widespread support for smoking restrictions and legislation, and, together, these factors should facilitate the implementation of any future legislation on smoking in public places. However, support for legislation should be interpreted within the context of continuing doubt amongst employers and employees about the true health risks of passive smoking, and the somewhat flexible way existing policies work in practice. In addition, businesses and individuals have considerable fears, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector, and smaller organisations. For these types of business, fears tend to centre on potential loss of trade or profit, and also on the resources needed to implement such a policy.
Smoking restrictions are likely to meet less resistance from businesses than a total ban. However, there are practical barriers for smaller businesses without the space to allocate as smoking areas, which may make a total ban easier to manage for some. Furthermore, despite managers' perceptions that introducing a full ban would cause greater conflict with staff, the experience of those with an existing ban suggests that, once the policy is established, there are lower levels of non-compliance with a ban than restrictions, making the policy easier to enforce.

1. Background to study and method

In 2004, NHS Health Scotland commissioned BMRB Social Research to conduct a survey of workplace smoking policies in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Executive. This research was commissioned in the context of an increased priority for action on smoking in public places as set out in the UK White Paper Smoking Kills (1998) and the Scottish Executive Tobacco Control Action Plan (2004). Emphasis had also been placed on health in the workplace by the Scottish Executive in Our National Health: a plan for action, a plan for change (2000). The Tobacco Control Action Plan which was published in January 2004 announced a public consultation on smoking in enclosed public places. This consultation programme was launched in June 2004, and this research project is part of a series of projects designed to support the programme.

The research also addresses issues raised by the Regulation of Smoking (Scotland) Bill proposed by Stewart Maxwell MSP, which aims to restrict smoking by employees and the general public in enclosed areas where food is served.

The findings from this research add to the findings of research commissioned in 2003 by HEBS and ASH, to explore the impact of the Voluntary Charter of May 2000. The Charter, launched by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and the Scottish Tourist Forum, set targets for the licensed trade, tourism and hospitality sectors to extend the provision of smoke-free areas for the general public.

The objectives of this study were:

to determine the patterns of provision of smoking policies in commercial workplaces in Scotland and to measure the extent of policy enforcement
to determine what smoking cessation support is currently in place for employees and how this could be extended
to identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing employee smoking policies
to assess the potential impact of the introduction of smoking policies and the perceived need for legislation.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this study were:

to determine the patterns of provision of smoking policies in commercial workplaces in Scotland and to measure the extent of policy enforcement
to determine what smoking cessation support is currently in place for employees and how this could be extended
to identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing employee smoking policies
to assess the potential impact of the introduction of smoking policies and the perceived need for legislation.

1.2 Overview of Method

The study was commissioned in three stages. First, there was a survey of workplaces in Small and Medium Enterprises or SMEs (organisations with under 250 employees). This was followed by a survey of workplaces in large organisations (250+ employees). The fieldwork for these two surveys was carried out at different times, but the methodology and the questionnaire used were the same. Following the two surveys, qualitative case studies were conducted in seventeen of the workplaces that had participated in the surveys.

1.2.1 The surveys

Sample selection

The surveys included commercial organisations with at least one employee. Sole traders were excluded as many of the issues were not directly relevant to this group. The sample was split into two groups, workplaces that were classified as belonging to SMEs (organisations with at least one, but less than 250 employees) and workplaces that were part of large organisations (with 250 or more employees).

The sampling unit for the surveys was workplace rather than organisation, and it is important to note, therefore, that a large number of workplaces were branches of larger organisations. This means that the size of the workplace is not the same as the size of the organisation; indeed, it is possible to find very small workplaces that belong to very large organisations.

Databases of businesses tend to vary in their coverage; therefore, to ensure the best coverage of all sizes of organisation, sample was purchased from two commercial databases: Dun and Bradstreet and Experian. Organisations from the public sector, private households and sole traders were removed from the sample before selection.

The sample for SMEs was selected at branch level, meaning that organisations with several branches could be selected more than once. The sample was selected to over-represent the larger SME organisations (with 50-250 employees) in order to ensure that enough businesses of this size were available for analysis. The final data were then weighted back to the population profile.

The sample for larger organisations was selected to include branches and head offices as well as large stand-alone organisations with over 250 employees. The sample for larger organisations was stratified alphabetically before selection to prevent too many branches of one large organisation from being selected, which would have over-represented one organisation in the data. Equal numbers of branches with head offices in Scotland and head offices elsewhere were selected. The final data were weighted back to the natural proportions of branches whose head offices were in Scotland, branches whose head offices were elsewhere in the UK, and head offices and single site, stand-alone organisations.

Data collection method

Each organisation in the final selected sample was sent an advance letter to explain the purpose of the study and to give them the opportunity to opt-out. Fifteen-minute telephone interviews were conducted using CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) technology. The interviewer asked to speak to the person responsible for smoking policies at the workplace, and this included those responsible either for deciding the policy or for implementing and enforcing the policy at the workplace. The focus of the study was the workplace contacted rather than the organisation, although, for SMEs, the workplace contacted was often the only one in the organisation.

Interviews with SME organisations took place between Monday 19 th January and Friday 12 th March 2004, and interviews with the larger organisations took place from Thursday 1 ^st April until Friday 30^th April 2004.

Response rates
1066 interviews were achieved with SME workplaces, and 538 interviews were achieved with workplaces in larger organisations. In total, 1604 interviews were achieved with Scottish organisations, with an estimated response rate of 57%. In calculating the response rate, we have taken into account the high rate of ineligible sample amongst SME workplaces (32%), due to the inclusion in the initial sample of both sole traders and organisations with too many employees. On this basis, the response rate among SMEs was estimated to be 59%. Since eligibility was much higher among the larger organisations, no adjustment was required, and a response rate of 54% was achieved for this group.

For further details of response rates and weighting details see Appendix B.

Sample profile
After weighting to return the sample to the natural proportions of workplaces, workplaces in SMEs made up 87% of the final sample, with 13% of workplaces in large organisations. Within the SME sample, 61% were stand-alone organisations. In contrast, most workplaces from large organisations (94%) were branches of a parent company.

As already noted, the size of workplace does not necessarily relate to its classification as belonging to an SME or large organisation. The table clearly illustrates that whilst the average workplace in a larger organisation has more employees, there are workplaces of similar sizes within both SMEs and large businesses.

Table 1.1: Number of employees at workplace (%)

Number of employees at workplace	All (1604)	Large (538)	SME (1066)
2 to 4 employees	42%	8%	47%
5 to 9 employees	25%	27%	25%
10 to 49 employees	25%	42%	22%
50 to 250 employees	7%	16%	6%
251+ employees	1%	7%	-
Base: All respondents

When interpreting the results of this survey, it is also important to bear in mind that a third of workplaces had no employees who smoked, and a further third had only a few employees who smoked. The majority of employees smoked in only one in five workplaces. This is likely to have some impact on smoking policies. For further details of sample profile see Appendix A.

SIC classification
In this report, some of the results have been broken down to show the different attitudes and behaviour of key sub-groups. One of the key analysis variables is Standard Industry Classification (SIC) or sector. The table below shows which types of business are included in each grouping.

Table 1.2: Percentage of businesses in each industry sector (%)

Category	% of weighted sample	Definition
Finance, real estate and other business	18%	Also includes renting, legal activities, advertising and research, cleaning services, security etc
Retail & wholesale	28%	Wholesale, retail and certain repairs
Social and personal services	6%	Services such as hairdressing, dry cleaning, funeral trade; waste and sewage; membership organisations etc
Leisure and hospitality	14%	Hotels, restaurants, tourism trade etc
Manufacturing	11%	All manufacturing trades
Agriculture, forestry etc	6%	Agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing, mining & quarrying etc
Construction	9%	All aspects of construction
Transport & storage	5%	All transport and storage.
Base: All respondents (1604)

In general terms, those in the retail and wholesale, finance and real estate, and social and personal services sectors tended to be smaller workplaces, generally based indoors with a mix of manual and non-manual work. These made up around half of workplaces interviewed. The manufacturing and leisure and hospitality businesses tended to be medium to large workplaces, again based largely indoors, but with mostly manual work. These made up a quarter of the workplaces. The remaining sectors (agriculture and forestry, construction and transport) tended to be small to medium businesses, often outdoors and off-site, and with mostly manual work. These made up a fifth of the workplaces.

These correlations between sector and other business demographics mean that there will be a strong relationship between analysis by sector, and by other analysis variables such as whether work is indoors/outdoors, manual/non-manual, on-site/off-site, and size of business.

Reporting differences
Throughout the report, when differences in the data are discussed, these have been tested for significance using a two-tailed T-test on column proportions. Where observed differences between different sub-groups are significant, these are specifically noted in the text and reported at the 95% confidence level. This means that, if 20 samples were selected, the difference would appear in 19 out of 20 samples. If the differences observed are not significant, there will be no comment in the text. Finally, it should be noted that significance testing assumes a 100% response rate and normally distributed data and should, therefore, only be treated as indicative for this data set.

Questionnaire wording
Where total prohibition of smoking or a smoke-free workplace was explored in the questionnaire, the decision was taken to refer to this as a 'ban on smoking' since this was considered to be the term that respondents would be most familiar with and should, therefore, not result in any ambiguity. To ensure that the results of the survey are reported accurately, this report often refers to a 'ban' rather than using terms that may be in use elsewhere. This terminology was carried through to the qualitative research.

Table conventions
In tables, the following conventions have been used:

percentages for single-response questions do not always add up to 100% exactly due to the effect of rounding
a "*" symbol denotes a percentage of less than 0.5%
a "-" symbol denotes zero.

1.2.2 The qualitative case studies

Seventeen case studies involving about three interviews were carried out with businesses that had taken part in the survey and agreed to be re-contacted. The case studies were chosen to reflect a range of characteristics including:

number of employees
number of sites
how many employees smoked
what kind of smoking policy was reported in the survey
the type of business
when the smoking policy was introduced.

In each case study, one interview was carried out with the person who had filled in the survey - this was usually the owner in small businesses and a manager or Human Resources (HR) contact in larger ones. In addition to this, two interviews were carried out with other staff in the business, wherever possible, with one smoker and one non-smoker. The qualitative study explored the situation in practice in companies and the rationale behind owners' or managers' decisions. In addition, the study was able to examine the views of staff about these decisions, and the impact they were felt to have. The full structure of the qualitative case studies, and the interviews carried out within them, is provided in Appendix A.

The interviews were carried out at the respondents' workplaces, but care was taken to ensure that the interviews were held individually with staff in private. Interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers using a topic guide to ensure that key issues were discussed. A total of 55 interviews were carried out. The topic guide is included in Appendix D. The fieldwork was conducted in May and June 2004.

1. Background to study and method

The objectives of this study were:

to determine the patterns of provision of smoking policies in commercial workplaces in Scotland and to measure the extent of policy enforcement
to determine what smoking cessation support is currently in place for employees and how this could be extended
to identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing employee smoking policies
to assess the potential impact of the introduction of smoking policies and the perceived need for legislation.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this study were:

to determine the patterns of provision of smoking policies in commercial workplaces in Scotland and to measure the extent of policy enforcement
to determine what smoking cessation support is currently in place for employees and how this could be extended
to identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing employee smoking policies
to assess the potential impact of the introduction of smoking policies and the perceived need for legislation.

1.2 Overview of Method

1.2.1 The surveys

Sample selection

Data collection method

For further details of response rates and weighting details see Appendix B.

Table 1.1: Number of employees at workplace (%)

Number of employees at workplace	All (1604)	Large (538)	SME (1066)
2 to 4 employees	42%	8%	47%
5 to 9 employees	25%	27%	25%
10 to 49 employees	25%	42%	22%
50 to 250 employees	7%	16%	6%
251+ employees	1%	7%	-
Base: All respondents

Table 1.2: Percentage of businesses in each industry sector (%)

Category	% of weighted sample	Definition
Finance, real estate and other business	18%	Also includes renting, legal activities, advertising and research, cleaning services, security etc
Retail & wholesale	28%	Wholesale, retail and certain repairs
Social and personal services	6%	Services such as hairdressing, dry cleaning, funeral trade; waste and sewage; membership organisations etc
Leisure and hospitality	14%	Hotels, restaurants, tourism trade etc
Manufacturing	11%	All manufacturing trades
Agriculture, forestry etc	6%	Agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing, mining & quarrying etc
Construction	9%	All aspects of construction
Transport & storage	5%	All transport and storage.
Base: All respondents (1604)

Table conventions
In tables, the following conventions have been used:

percentages for single-response questions do not always add up to 100% exactly due to the effect of rounding
a "*" symbol denotes a percentage of less than 0.5%
a "-" symbol denotes zero.

1.2.2 The qualitative case studies

number of employees
number of sites
how many employees smoked
what kind of smoking policy was reported in the survey
the type of business
when the smoking policy was introduced.

2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking

The quantitative study investigated the perceived risks of passive smoking. The qualitative study examined these risks further as well as exploring attitudes towards smoking in general and how these underpinned views about smoking policies and behaviour at work.
The qualitative research demonstrated that both smokers and non-smokers viewed smoking very negatively. Comfort, particularly the smell of smoke, was often top of mind.
The quantitative survey found that the majority of those responsible for smoking policies were aware of the health risks of passive smoking (88%). Likewise, in the qualitative research, concerns about the health risks of passive smoking were also raised.
There was, however, an underlying uncertainty and scepticism about the real level of danger for individuals from either smoking or passive smoking. Smoking was seen as a way to relax and unwind and to deal with a stressful job. Non-smokers were very aware of smoking as an addiction and therefore often tolerant of the perceived needs and rights of smokers.

2.1 Quantitative Study

2.1.1 Attitudes towards passive smoking

One possible facilitator or barrier to implementing smoking policies was the policy-maker or policy-implementer's attitude towards passive smoking and ventilation. If people did not believe that there were any health risks associated with passive smoking, then they were unlikely to see the need for a smoking policy.

Without prompting, the majority of respondents (60%) believed that a complete smoking ban in the workplace would benefit the health of non-smokers. In order to understand why this might be the case, all respondents were asked to say, in their own words, what they believed to be the health risks associated with passive smoking. The vast majority (88%) were able to list at least one health risk associated with passive smoking. Respondents who smoked were less likely to cite any risks (71% compared with 92% of non-smokers). The specific health risks cited are included in Table 2.1.

Around half of respondents (54%) said inhaling other people's smoke was generally dangerous to health. Almost a third (32%) mentioned cancer generally and a quarter (25%) mentioned damaged lungs or lung cancer specifically. Only 6% said that inhaling others' smoke had no health risks associated with it, with 6% unsure. Respondents who smoked were more likely than any other group to believe that there were no health risks (17%).

Table 2.1: Percentage of respondents who believed passive smoking had the following health risks (%)

Risks associated with passive smoking	% of respondents
Generally dangerous to health	54%
Cancer (general)	32%
Damaged lungs/lung cancer	25%
Respiratory problems	15%
Asthma	9%
Heart disease/heart attack	8%
Smelly clothes/hair	4%
Laryngitis and other throat problems	1%
Coughs/colds/influenza	1%
Irritated eyes	1%
Circulatory problems	1%
No health risks	6%
Don't know	6%
Base: All respondents (1604)

The fact that only 6% did not see any health risks indicates that a lack of knowledge about (or belief in) the health risks associated with passive smoking should not be a barrier to the implementation of smoking policies. However, it should be noted that the qualitative study revealed that this widespread knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking might be undermined by uncertainty and scepticism regarding the real level of danger for individuals as discussed below in Section 2.2.

2.2 Qualitative Study

Smoking was generally viewed very negatively by smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers. As was the case in the surveys, respondents generally mentioned the health risks associated with smoking and passive smoking as well as issues relating to comfort. However, it was clear that, underlying this acceptance of the health risks of smoking, there was a wide range of beliefs about the real level of danger for both smokers and those inhaling others' smoke. There was also strong awareness of the addictive nature of smoking. This contributed to non-smokers' tolerance of other people smoking and smokers' belief in their own right to do so.

Smokers and non-smokers described smoking as a 'dirty' or 'filthy' habit.

"It's a horrible habit, especially when people are eating." (Non-smoker, 50-250 employees, leisure and hospitality).

Comfort was generally the issue which was raised first and which seemed to generate the strongest emotions. The smell of smoke, in particular, was greatly disliked, both in itself and because it became embedded in clothes, furniture and rooms.

"What gets to me is the smell. I love smoking, it's the best thing in the world, but... when you go outside you can smell it." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

Smokers tended to be very aware of the discomfort caused to non-smokers by the smell of smoke and were keen not to impose this on them.

"I feel very strongly about that, I feel that if someone doesn't smoke, I've got no right whatsoever to contaminate their clothes, affect their health, I think I've got no right at all." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

However, views varied as to how considerate they needed to be. Some felt that they should not smoke anywhere inside, where there were non-smokers, whilst others believed that standing next to an open door and blowing their smoke outwards was sufficient. Non-smokers also expressed a range of attitudes to the level of consideration that they expected or wanted from smokers.

"I don't begrudge people smoking, that's their choice... I think the older I've got, the more intolerant I've become of smoking... people are selfish when they smoke." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, retail).

Not all non-smokers believed that smokers should not smoke near them, even if they disliked the smell or other effects of smoking. Health risks associated with smoking were raised spontaneously a great deal, but there were debates as to the true extent of the risk for both smokers and those inhaling other people's smoke. Smokers and non-smokers usually mentioned cancer, lung problems and heart disease as being possible dangers of smoking, with some also discussing respiratory problems, asthma and coughing. Some also raised more minor effects such as increased susceptibility to colds and coughs, general ill health, poor skin and a poor or unhealthy appearance.

"I know people who have lung cancer who don't smoke, so I wouldn't say that it's necessarily smoking that causes it... everybody's got cancer in them and sometimes it starts and sometimes it doesn't, no matter what... I know it doesn't help your health, because I know personally that since I stopped smoking... I can walk further without choking." (Non-smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

However, beneath this surface awareness of the health risks, there was considerable uncertainty and some scepticism, as to how serious they really were. Respondents cited personal experience or anecdotal evidence as countering the statistics and other information they had seen in the media and on cigarette packets. For instance, one pregnant smoker remarked that she was not overly worried about the effect of smoking on her baby as she had heard of smoking mothers who had healthy babies and non-smokers who had experienced problems.

"I know there are risks associated with it [smoking when pregnant], but I don't know, my mother smoked with us and I smoked when I was expecting [her first child], obviously I've cut down significantly... you've known so many healthy babies from smoking mothers... you can see they're healthy and not asthmatic. My partner is asthmatic but neither his mother nor father smoked... " (Smoker, 250+ employees, leisure and hospitality).

Likewise, another smoker commented that she found the low-level effects of smoking (colds, bad skin and so on) easy to accept because she experienced them herself, but that she was more sceptical about the serious health risks as her mother had had both cancer and a heart attack but had never smoked. In the same way, other respondents sometimes wondered if the link between lung cancer and smoking was certain because they had known non-smokers who had experienced it and smokers who had not. Non-smokers did tend to view the health risks more straightforwardly, but even they were unsure as to how much damage they would really experience if they spent time with friends or colleagues while they smoked.

Despite the unpleasant effects of smoking, it was seen as a way to relax and unwind. Those with stressful jobs reported that it helped them to deal with this stress and that it was something they could do in breaks or when having a drink to help them unwind. Non-smokers also often cited smoking as a way in which colleagues coped with stress.

"It's a need they have to feel... enforced stopping of something usually agitates people. They can probably hold off for longer but if they come back more relaxed it's much more productive." (Non-smoker, 5-9 employees, social & personal services/voluntary sector).

The tolerance of smoking displayed by non-smokers tended to be linked to their view of smoking as an addiction. Smokers discussed the addictive nature of smoking and often despaired of being able to give up successfully (and not start again).

"I could be on track, focussing on something, and then the need for a cigarette comes in and I feel I have to meet that need. I'm driven by something else... I still feel a bit controlled by the addiction." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, social and personal services).

Non-smokers agreed that it was very hard to give up and cited the physical and psychological effects of a smoker being unable to smoke when they needed to. Both smokers and non-smokers also pointed out that, as smoking was legal as well as being addictive, it was unreasonable to expect all smokers to give up or not to smoke throughout a work day. This influenced their views of how smoking policies should operate, as is discussed below.

Cost was occasionally mentioned by smokers. However, non-smokers seemed to have more faith than smokers in the use of cost as an argument to give up. In relation to smoking at work, both smokers and non-smokers also discussed their dislike of seeing groups of people smoking outside doorways (and the butts which were then dropped). They also mentioned fire risks posed by smoking inside, the cleaning requirements for rooms where smoking was allowed and the issue of hygiene in relation to kitchen or serving staff smoking.

2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking

The quantitative study investigated the perceived risks of passive smoking. The qualitative study examined these risks further as well as exploring attitudes towards smoking in general and how these underpinned views about smoking policies and behaviour at work.
The qualitative research demonstrated that both smokers and non-smokers viewed smoking very negatively. Comfort, particularly the smell of smoke, was often top of mind.
The quantitative survey found that the majority of those responsible for smoking policies were aware of the health risks of passive smoking (88%). Likewise, in the qualitative research, concerns about the health risks of passive smoking were also raised.
There was, however, an underlying uncertainty and scepticism about the real level of danger for individuals from either smoking or passive smoking. Smoking was seen as a way to relax and unwind and to deal with a stressful job. Non-smokers were very aware of smoking as an addiction and therefore often tolerant of the perceived needs and rights of smokers.

2.1 Quantitative Study

2.1.1 Attitudes towards passive smoking

Table 2.1: Percentage of respondents who believed passive smoking had the following health risks (%)

Risks associated with passive smoking	% of respondents
Generally dangerous to health	54%
Cancer (general)	32%
Damaged lungs/lung cancer	25%
Respiratory problems	15%
Asthma	9%
Heart disease/heart attack	8%
Smelly clothes/hair	4%
Laryngitis and other throat problems	1%
Coughs/colds/influenza	1%
Irritated eyes	1%
Circulatory problems	1%
No health risks	6%
Don't know	6%
Base: All respondents (1604)

2.2 Qualitative Study

Smokers and non-smokers described smoking as a 'dirty' or 'filthy' habit.

"It's a horrible habit, especially when people are eating." (Non-smoker, 50-250 employees, leisure and hospitality).

"What gets to me is the smell. I love smoking, it's the best thing in the world, but... when you go outside you can smell it." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

Smokers tended to be very aware of the discomfort caused to non-smokers by the smell of smoke and were keen not to impose this on them.

3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work

The quantitative study investigated the perceived barriers and benefits of policies that restricted and banned smoking in the workplace. The qualitative study further explored further participants' attitudes towards smoking in the workplace.
The quantitative research found that those responsible for smoking policies in the workplace were able to see the health benefits of implementing some kind of smoking restriction or ban for employees. Productivity was seen as more likely to be improved than reduced by a ban, although feelings were more mixed about the impact of smoking restrictions on productivity.
There was some evidence of support for a smoking ban, since 89% were able to cite one or more benefits, and only 11% could see no benefits. There was, however, evidence of a preference for smoking restrictions over a ban, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector.
The main anticipated barrier to introduction of a policy to ban smoking was fear of confrontation amongst staff. It was anticipated that there would be less confrontation with the introduction of smoking restrictions rather than a ban. Lack of resources was a further barrier to implementing smoking policies, particularly for smaller organisations.
The qualitative research found that the concepts of fairness and choice underpinned much of the discussion around smoking in the workplace. There was a perceived need to balance the rights of smokers and non-smokers. There was also a resistance to any sense of a 'big brother' state enforcing particular policies on businesses.
As in the quantitative survey, the effects of smoking at work on productivity were debated within the qualitative research. Whilst some agreed that productivity might be improved by reducing smoking, others worried about the effect of doing so on smokers' efficiency.

3.1 Quantitative Study

When looking at attitudes towards smoking policies, it is important to do so in the context of the smoking policy operated in the workplace. These policies are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. However, to put the findings in this chapter into context, it is worth noting at this point that 48% of workplaces banned employees from smoking and a further 28% restricted smoking to particular areas. Only 22% had no smoking policy in place, half of whom currently employed no smokers.

3.1.1 Perceived benefits of an employee smoking ban

The most commonly perceived benefits (mentioned spontaneously) of having a total smoking ban for employees throughout the workplace are shown below in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each benefit of an employee smoking ban (%)

Figure 3.1: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each benefit of an employee smoking ban (%)

By far, the most commonly perceived benefit of a ban was to protect the health of non-smoking employees and members of the general public (60%). This was the primary response of all organisations, across all business sectors and the various sizes of workplaces, although the leisure and hospitality sector was less likely than average (48%) to cite this as a potential benefit.

As expected, those who currently had a policy banning smoking throughout the workplace were most likely (67%) to cite the health benefits of a ban. In contrast, those with no policy (53%) and those who restricted smoking to designated areas (54%) were less likely to see the health benefits than those who had already implemented a ban. Nevertheless, over half of both these groups could still see the health benefits.

A quarter (25%) believed that a smoking ban would increase productivity through fewer breaks and less absenteeism. This benefit was less likely to be mentioned by those from SME workplaces (24%) than workplaces of larger organisations (32%). Other benefits mentioned included a healthier workplace (8%), a reduction in employee smoking (7%), a reduced fire risk (6%) and reduced cleaning costs (5%).

One in ten (11%), however, said they could see no benefits to having a full smoking ban for employees in the workplace, rising to two in ten (20%) in the leisure and hospitality sector. The qualitative research confirmed that this was often linked to worries about a ban on smoking by the general public in bars and restaurants and associated worries of a loss in custom and profit. These concerns are similar to those of the industry in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the recent imposition of a smoking ban in all workplaces.

Figure 3.2: Percentage of workplaces seeing no benefits to an employee smoking ban (by estimated proportion of employees who smoke in the workplace) (%)

Figure 3.2: Percentage of workplaces seeing no benefits to an employee smoking ban (by estimated proportion of employees who smoke in the workplace)(%)

As the number of smokers in the workplace increased, so did the propensity of the respondents to say that a ban would have no benefits for their organisation (see Figure 3.2).

3.1.2 Perceived benefits of restricting smoking to designated areas rather than implementing a ban

As shown in Figure 3.3, the most commonly mentioned benefit of restricting smoking rather than banning it throughout the workplace was that it would avoid confrontation with staff who smoked (24%). This was particularly recognised by workplaces belonging to larger organisations, with a third (33%) mentioning this benefit compared with one in five (22%) SMEs. The qualitative research cast more light on the nature of these concerns and the situations in which they tended to arise (see Section 3.2).

Figure 3.3: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each benefit of a smoking restriction rather than a full ban (%)

Figure 3.3: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each benefit of a smoking restriction rather than a full ban (%)

One in five (19%) also felt that smoking restrictions would protect the health of non-smokers and 7% said it would increase staff productivity. Other benefits were mentioned by under 5%, but were largely the same benefits as those given for a smoking ban.

Three in ten (31%) said that they could see no benefit in restricting smoking rather than imposing a complete ban. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who currently had a complete ban were more likely (39%) to say that restrictions had no extra benefits than those who currently had a policy that restricted smoking (23%).

Respondents from the leisure and hospitality sector, whose attitudes towards a smoking ban differed markedly from those in other sectors, showed no real differences this time from other sectors when considering the benefits of smoking restrictions.

3.1.3 Negative consequences of an employee smoking ban

Respondents were asked what they considered to be the negative consequences of imposing an employee smoking ban, in order to understand what barriers might exist to doing so. Figure 3.4 shows the responses that were most commonly given.

The main concern was the potential for confrontation or ill feeling amongst employees (41%). This was more prevalent for workplaces of larger organisations (51%) than for those of SMEs (40%). This may be linked to concerns about non-compliance and enforcement, as those from larger organisations were almost twice as likely (12%) as those from SMEs (7%) to be concerned about this. This anticipated barrier contrasts with the finding that, for existing policies, there was less evidence of non-compliance with a full ban than with restrictions (see Chapter 5). It is possible, therefore, that these would be barriers to the initial implementation of the policy, rather than ongoing enforcement.

One in ten respondents (10%) was also concerned about a reduction in productivity (presumably due to staff having to leave the premises for a smoking break) and one in ten (10%) was also worried about a potential loss of staff. Other issues raised included loss of rights and civil liberties (4%), an increase in employee stress (3%) and a possible deterrent to future applicants (2%).

Figure 3.4: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each negative consequence of an employee smoking ban (%)

Figure 3.4: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each negative consequence of an employee smoking ban (%)

Three in ten (28%) said they could not see any negative consequences of implementing a smoking ban. Those who currently have a smoking ban in place were most likely to see no negative consequences (35%). This viewpoint was not, however, restricted to those with a current ban. One in five of those with no policy (22%) and of those with a policy that currently restricts smoking to designated areas (22%) could see no negative consequences in implementing a complete ban.

3.1.4 Negative consequences of restricting employee smoking in the workplace

There was generally less consensus amongst respondents with regard to the negative consequences of having designated smoking areas for employees in the workplace. Figure 3.5 shows the responses that were given most often.

Figure 3.5: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each negative consequence of having designated smoking areas for employees (%)

Figure 3.5: Percentage of workplaces perceiving each negative consequence of having designated smoking areas for employees (%)

The main concerns aired were the potential reduction in productivity (13%) and the requirement to provide a smoking room/area (12%). These issues, along with concerns about the costs of implementation (6%), seem to indicate that the main worries related to the financial implications of such a policy. The qualitative study also highlighted the concerns of businesses regarding the impact of restricting smoking in terms of disrupting work patterns and, for some, worries about whether they would be able to provide a smoking area acceptable to staff.

Respondents were also concerned about the potential confrontation with staff (12%), although this was much less of a concern than it had been with regard to a complete ban (41%). Interestingly, workplaces that were part of large organisations were primarily concerned about confrontation (16%), whilst SME workplaces were mainly concerned about the financial implications of reduced productivity (13%) and providing a room (13%). This seems to indicate that, for SME workplaces, resources might be the main constraint to implementing this policy, whereas, for larger workplaces, it might tend to be policy enforcement and staff morale.

Other issues raised included: the smell would still spread to non-smoking areas (4%); such a policy would encourage employees to smoke (4%); it would cause segregation (3%); it would be difficult to enforce (3%); it would create an unpleasant smoking area (3%), and, finally, that it would not reduce all the health risks associated with smoking (2%).

By far, the most commonly given response was that restricting smoking would have no negative consequences (34%). Once again, support for this type of policy extended beyond those who already had adopted such a policy, with those who had no policy in place being as likely (35%) to see no negative consequences to implementing restrictions.

3.2 Qualitative Study

A number of issues underpinned respondents' views of smoking at work and of the types of policies regulating it. These included fairness, choice, addiction, productivity and smoking in social situations and at home.

A key issue running through all the case studies was the concept of fairness and choice. Smokers and non-smokers felt that people should have personal choice as to whether they wanted to smoke or not. Respondents agreed that choices should not be imposed on either smokers or non-smokers. Generally, both managers and staff felt that the right balance needed to be struck between the rights of these two groups.

I think people would be better off not smoking - it's a silly, futile activity...but they have freedom of choice." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, leisure and hospitality).

Smokers and non-smokers highlighted the legality of smoking as a support for the argument in favour of choice. The issue of addiction was also mentioned a great deal. Many said that they had attempted to stop but had failed on numerous occasions. There was also a strong view among non-smokers that smokers had a craving for cigarettes/nicotine, which had to be addressed. It was generally accepted that people who needed to smoke during work hours should be able to do so as lack of nicotine could affect how they carried out their duties. Smokers also felt that a cigarette was a reward for their hard work or aided them when they felt stressed within the workplace. They began to feel resentful if they could not have a cigarette.

"If someone said don't do that, you've got to do this, it's 'sod you! I'll do what I want!" (Smoker, 5-9 employees, social and personal services).

Staff and managers felt that, ideally, it was fair for both smokers and non-smokers to be entitled to provision in the form of staff smoking rooms and break areas. However, due to space constraints, this was not always possible. The nature of provision was highlighted as affecting whether members of staff felt they had been treated fairly or not.

Also linked to the importance of fairness and choice was the need for inclusion and consultation with all members of staff around smoking policies at work. The size of the company did seem to affect staff views. Those in large organisations (often with HR departments) were usually more accepting of restrictive policies and their enforcement than were those in smaller companies.

Another strong theme was the idea of a 'big brother' state. Respondents of all types commented that they did not like the idea of being told what to do in relation to smoking or other issues of personal choice and lifestyle. Respondents tended to be very negative about the idea of rules seen as arising from a 'big brother' approach, with some even saying that they felt that such rules would infringe smokers' human rights.

"Other things kill people; unhappiness kills people, too much butter. People have the right to be themselves and live their own lives...It's a 'big brother' thing." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, social and personal services).

"It's not really anything to do with smoking, it's more to do with control. I think that's [smoking] an issue that people should be able to choose themselves." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, retail).

"I think we're turning into very much a police state that's trying to regulate everything and...I think personal choice should still be there...it might irritate me to think that someone else is calling the shots in my life." (Smoker, 10-49 employees, social and personal services).

3.2.1 Productivity

As was the case in the survey, two views of the impact of smoking on productivity emerged. Arguments were put forward that productivity was decreased by smoking (due to the need for smoking breaks). However, it was also felt by many that productivity could be damaged to a greater extent if smokers were unable to smoke.

Occasionally, smokers were also seen to be taking more breaks than they were allowed, or extending breaks. However, there were many cases where productivity was not perceived as being negatively affected by smokers' breaks, and non-smokers did not feel resentment towards those who took breaks to have a cigarette.

One important factor in attitudes to smoking and breaks was how breaks were organised. Businesses either had official break times for both smokers and non-smokers, or they operated a more flexible system where smokers could have a cigarette break if they were not busy, or with their manager's permission. Where a formal break system was in place, it was generally reported that smokers kept within their official breaks. Resentment could arise, however, if smokers were seen to be taking more breaks than was allowed.

"That really annoys me because why should she get any more breaks than me? If I was to...sit down and have a cup of coffee rather than a cigarette, I'm sure somebody would come along and say 'what are you doing there'?" (Non-smoker, 50-250 employees, retail).

Where arrangements were more flexible, some smokers felt less stressed and panicked whilst working, as they knew they could take a break whenever they needed to. In office-based businesses, it was also remarked that members of staff were often talking about work-related issues when on cigarette breaks, which reduced the risk of resentment among other staff, or of productivity being seen to suffer.

"...they could be spending a bit of time out there but they might not be smoking all the time, they could be discussing work as well...I don't think it matters whether they're out there or in here, you know, they're still being productive." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, social and personal services).

It was also highlighted that, in some professions, staff who smoked were able to bond with clients who also smoked, as it provided them with common ground.

"A lot of people who use this service are smokers so it's important they 'self-medicate'...I find, this sounds bizarre, being a smoker has enabled me to relate better to the clients...and get to know the person better...it makes you one of them." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, social and personal services).

Productivity was felt to be particularly badly affected if the location of a designated smoking area was far away from where staff worked. Some smokers had been seen to take unofficial breaks in the toilets for a cigarette, often without the knowledge of their manager. Other staff knew that this went on, but it did not seem to be a major issue for most of them, as these breaks were not very long and were not seen to affect their workload. In some instances, where someone had been taking too many breaks, interviewees reported that these had been quickly dealt with by managers, usually informally. Smokers and non-smokers also knew that some staff smoked extra cigarettes when running errands between buildings but did not see this as a problem.

It was often felt by staff and managers that not letting people smoke could create more problems than allowing it. Smokers and non-smokers commented that smokers suffered from withdrawal symptoms if they went without a cigarette for a long time. They became irritable, stressed, bad tempered and lacking in concentration.

In organisations where smoking was allowed in designated places (or in those which were considering this option), there was initial concern that productivity would be affected by people walking to and from the areas and therefore taking longer breaks. However, in practice, staff adjusted to this arrangement, and it was not felt that productivity was affected.

"I think (smoking) could affect productivity, if you've got an enthusiastic, motivated workforce and you're managing people properly, it shouldn't affect productivity. I don't believe that people shirk work (to smoke) because they just don't like working." (Smoker, 10-49 employees, leisure and hospitality).

"I think if someone was constantly going out and having a break...it's a smoke but it's a break, then you'd feel maybe...it's not right." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, construction).

3.2.2 Smoking outside the workplace

Respondents' attitudes towards smoking and smoking policies at work sometimes differed from their views of what was acceptable socially. In particular, pubs and bars were perceived differently. Smokers and non-smokers often felt that smoking should be allowed in such places if nowhere else. They understood that pubs and bars were people's workplaces, but felt that it would be strange to have a pub with no smoking.

"I'm in two minds about it, although I don't smoke and although I'm totally aware that it's a really filthy habit, I think fags are so readily available...to have a fag machine in a pub and not be able to smoke fags, or to have a shop up the street that sells fags and not to be able to smoke fags inside, or to have to smoke them outside is a bit unreasonable, I think it would have to be totally gradual...just all of a sudden to say, 'Right, no one can smoke anywhere in the pub ever again', I do think that's a little bit unreasonable." (Non-smoker, 250+ employees, leisure & hospitality).

Smokers believed that a drink and cigarette went hand in hand, and that they would not enjoy one without the other. A non-smoker commented that smoking gave pubs their traditional atmosphere. Also, non-smokers sometimes highlighted the issue of personal choice (discussed above), acknowledging that they could exercise their right to choose whether or not to go into a pub, bar or restaurant which allowed smoking.

Some smokers said that they would accept smoking regulations at work, but, after consideration, wanted the leisure and hospitality industry to be exempt. One smoker felt that a compromise could be a separate smoking room with good ventilation that staff did not have to enter. He thought that this would overcome the inconvenience of smoking outside a pub, especially as drinking outside in Scotland was also banned. However, there was some resistance to the idea of varying legislation according to sector. Despite their desire to smoke in pubs, some believed that any legislation should be applied equally to all workplaces. This was one factor in leading them to favour policies introducing designated areas rather than a ban.

"...Why would people who work in an office have different lungs to people who work in a pub? That's nonsensical isn't it? It's like saying you can drive at 60 miles an hour in Edinburgh but you can only drive 40 in Glasgow. Do you know what I mean? You can't just change the rules because it's a pub." (Smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

4.1.3 Presence and type of employee smoking policy

Workplaces were slightly less likely to have an employee smoking policy (77%) than to have a general public policy (82%). The difference between SME and larger organisations was more striking than for general public policies. Only three quarters (75%) of SME workplaces reported having an employee smoking policy compared with almost all (96%) large organisation workplaces. Of the workplaces without a current policy, only one in five (18%) was planning to introduce a policy in the next year. This would raise the percentage of workplaces with a policy in Scotland from 77% to a maximum of 81%, assuming they did all implement a policy in the next twelve months.

Table 4.4: Percentage of workplaces with different types of employee smoking policies by organisation size and sector (%)

	Smoking is not permitted anywhere	Smoking is restricted to smoking rooms/designated smoking areas	Smoking is permitted everywhere	No Policy
All workplaces (1604)	48%	28%	1%	22%

All SME workplaces (1066)	46%	27%	1%	25%
All workplaces in large organisations (538)	61%	35%	-	4%

Finance, real estate and other business (270)	64%	18%	2%	16%
Social & personal services (99)	58%	24%	-	19%
Retail & wholesale (472)	60%	21%	*	18%
Manufacturing (197)	36%	44%	*	19%
Leisure & hospitality (209)	29%	41%	3%	27%
Transport & storage (80)	42%	31%	-	26%
Construction (134)	40%	26%	1%	33%
Agriculture, forestry etc (84)	28%	32%	-	38%
Base: All workplaces

As for general public policies, the type of policy was further explored (Table 4.4). Half of workplaces (48%) did not permit smoking by employees anywhere on the premises, rising to six in ten (61%) in large organisations. Three in ten (28%) restricted smoking to designated areas or smoking rooms, and only 1% had a policy which allowed employees to smoke anywhere on the premises. Two in ten (22%) had no policy at all.

There was considerable variation with regard to smoking policy types across the different business sectors as illustrated in Table 4.4. Three broad patterns of policy adoption emerged across the business sectors, which strongly indicate that the type of work carried out within each sector, along with the type of working environment, greatly affects the type of smoking policy adopted by a workplace.

Looking first at the traditionally non-manual, indoor, site-based sectors such as finance, social and personal services and retail and wholesale, Table 4.4 shows that workplaces from these sectors were more likely to ban smoking completely by employees throughout the premises than those from other sectors. They were also amongst the least likely to have no policy in place at all. In contrast, workplaces from the manufacturing and leisure and hospitality sectors, traditionally manual, indoor and site-based organisations, were most likely to have policies that restricted smoking by employees to smoking rooms or designated areas.

The third distinct group that emerged from the data included the traditionally manual, outdoor, off-site sectors of transport, construction and agriculture. Workplaces from these sectors were least likely to have a policy in place at all for employees, having also been least likely to have a policy for the general public. This finding is supported by the lower incidence of policies in general in workplaces where employees mostly work outdoors (63%) and off-site (62%).

Table 4.5: Percentage of workplaces with different types of employee smoking policies by workplace size within SME/Large organisations(%)

	Smoking is not permitted anywhere	Smoking is restricted to smoking rooms/designated smoking areas	Smoking is permitted everywhere	No Policy
All workplaces (1604)	48%	28%	1%	22%

All SME workplaces (1066)	46%	27%	1%	25%
2-4 employees (336)	47%	15%	2%	36%
5-9 employees (281)	52%	25%	1%	21%
10-49 employees (288)	40%	46%	1%	13%
50-249 employees (160)	40%	54%	1%	6%

All workplaces in large organisations (538)	61%	35%	-	4%
2-9 employees (163)	74%	21%	0%	6%
10-49 employees (198)	70%	27%	0%	4%
50-249 employees (108)	30%	64%	*	3%
250+ employees (67)	13%	87%	*	*
Base: All workplaces

While workplaces within large organisations were more likely than those in SMEs to have a policy, the size of the workplace also affected the presence and type of employee smoking policy (Table 4.5²). Workplaces in large organisations generally were likely to have a policy regardless of their size, although as the number of employees within the workplace increased, the policy was less often a total ban and more likely to restrict smoking to particular areas. Within SME workplaces, those with fewer employees were less likely to have a policy at all but, where there was a policy, this was more likely to be a ban than some kind of restriction.

Clearly, the size of the workplace and of the organisation greatly impacted on its likelihood of having an employee smoking policy, with SMEs, in particular those with fewer than 5 employees, being much less likely (64%) to have a policy. This reflected the pattern of provision of general public smoking policies in Scottish workplaces, and seemed to indicate that smaller workplaces were generally less likely to have these types of policies, which was likely to be, in part, the result of time and financial restraints. These and other potential barriers to the implementation in the workplace were discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

However, there is another reason why this may be the case for employee smoking policies. Three in five (61%) SME workplaces with 2 to 4 employees had no employees who smoked. As shown in Table 4.6, those who do not currently ‘need’ an employee smoking policy (that is, those with no employees who smoked) were less likely (68%) than average to have a smoking policy for employees (although those with a policy were most likely to ban smoking). Whilst this goes some way towards explaining the absence of a policy in certain workplaces, work would still be needed to encourage these organisations to introduce policies, as it is possible that, in the future, they might employ a smoker, for whom they would have no provisions in place.

Table 4.6: Percentage of workplaces with each policy type by estimated proportion of smokers at workplace (%)

	Smoking is not permitted anywhere	Smoking is restricted	Smoking is permitted everywhere	No policy
All/nearly all (131)	26%	35%	4%	35%
Half or more (158)	30%	57%	2%	10%
Under half (322)	39%	48%	*	12%
Just a few (604)	50%	32%	1%	17%
None (362)	60%	7%	*	31%
Base: All workplaces

As explained in Chapter 1, it should be noted that, even within larger organisations, individual workplaces could have small numbers of employees.

In addition, as the proportion of employees who smoked rose, the likelihood of having a total smoking ban fell, from six in ten workplaces (60%) with no smokers, to only a quarter (26%) of those where all (or nearly all) employees smoked. This may be because of concerns about enforcement and confrontation with employees, and these barriers to policy implementation were also discussed in Chapter 3.

Table 4.7: Percentage of organisations with a formal, written employee smoking policy by the size of the workplace (%)

SME Organisation (1066)		Large Organisation (538)
ALL WORKPLACES (1066)	26%	ALL WORKPLACES (538)	84%
2 to 4 employees (336)	15%	2-9 employees (163)	83%
5 to 9 employees (281)	28%	10-49 employees (198)	84%
10 to 49 employees (288)	36%	50-249 employees (108)	82%
50 to 250 employees (160)	75%	250+ employees (67)	93%
Base: All workplaces

As for general public policies, whilst the majority of workplaces had an employee smoking policy, only 34% had a formal written policy. Again, this was far more often the case in large organisations (84%) than in SMEs (26%). The size of SME workplace also made a difference as shown in Table 4.7. There was, however, little variation amongst large organisations according to size of workplace.

The majority of employee policies (59%) were introduced before May 2000. More recently introduced policies were more likely to be formal written policies (49%), whilst those introduced before May 2000 were less likely to be formal, written policies (40%).This indicates that policies introduced over four years ago tended to be informal, so perhaps encouraging workplaces to update their policies would result in a greater proportion of formal, written policies in Scotland.

When considering the prevalence of employee smoking policies recorded in this survey, it is important to bear in mind that the qualitative research indicated that, in reality, the implementation of smoking policies was not always in line with the claims made by owners, managers or HR contacts. This is discussed further in Section 4.2 below.

4.1.5 Where employees are permitted to smoke

Having established whether employees were permitted to smoke anywhere on the premises, all organisations with an employee smoking policy were also asked whether smoking was permitted in specific places around the workplace. In Figure 4.3, those who said each location was not applicable to their workplace have been removed.

Very few workplaces with an employee smoking policy permitted employees to smoke in the canteen (7%), although this was slightly higher amongst organisations from the manufacturing sector (19%). Smoking in front of clients was also only permitted by a small number of organisations (16%). Once again, those from the manufacturing sector were most likely (32%) to allow this and organisations in the leisure and hospitality sector were also less strict, with just over a quarter (27%) permitting employees to smoke in front of clients.

Figure 4.3: Whether employees are permitted to smoke in various locations at the workplace (%)

Figure 4.3: Whether employees are permitted to smoke in various locations at the workplace

Seven in ten (71%) permitted their employees to smoke in the grounds of the premises, probably as a consequence of the high proportion that restrict or ban smoking inside the premises. Those from the retail and wholesale sector were least likely to allow this (51%). This may be because the grounds are customer-facing (as only 6% of these organisations allowed smoking in front of clients) but also possibly due to a lack of control over this area, as many shops are leased from other organisations that may control the smoking policies in the grounds.

Just over a quarter of workplaces (27%) permitted employees to smoke in organisational vehicles. Those from the construction sector were most likely (51%) to allow this, along with those whose employees mostly worked away from the premises (48%), which is probably another reflection of the lesser degree of control employers have over off-site workers.

Of all the situations, organisations were most likely (77%) to allow employees to smoke when away on business. Presumably, the employer has little control to do otherwise once the employee has left the premises.

3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work

The quantitative study investigated the perceived barriers and benefits of policies that restricted and banned smoking in the workplace. The qualitative study further explored further participants' attitudes towards smoking in the workplace.
The quantitative research found that those responsible for smoking policies in the workplace were able to see the health benefits of implementing some kind of smoking restriction or ban for employees. Productivity was seen as more likely to be improved than reduced by a ban, although feelings were more mixed about the impact of smoking restrictions on productivity.
There was some evidence of support for a smoking ban, since 89% were able to cite one or more benefits, and only 11% could see no benefits. There was, however, evidence of a preference for smoking restrictions over a ban, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector.
The main anticipated barrier to introduction of a policy to ban smoking was fear of confrontation amongst staff. It was anticipated that there would be less confrontation with the introduction of smoking restrictions rather than a ban. Lack of resources was a further barrier to implementing smoking policies, particularly for smaller organisations.
The qualitative research found that the concepts of fairness and choice underpinned much of the discussion around smoking in the workplace. There was a perceived need to balance the rights of smokers and non-smokers. There was also a resistance to any sense of a 'big brother' state enforcing particular policies on businesses.
As in the quantitative survey, the effects of smoking at work on productivity were debated within the qualitative research. Whilst some agreed that productivity might be improved by reducing smoking, others worried about the effect of doing so on smokers' efficiency.