healthscotland.com

Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

Contents:

Executive Summary Executive Summary 1. Background to study and method 1. Background to study and method 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 7. Cessation support 7. Cessation support 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives Appendix A Appendix A Appendix B Appendix B Appendix C Appendix C Appendix D Appendix D

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 (%)

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) (%)

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 (%)

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 (%)

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 (%)

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 (%)

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.