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

4. Smoking policies in the workplace

• The quantitative study examined the types of smoking policies that were in place for employees and the general public. The qualitative study explored in more detail policy development, implementation and enforcement.
• The quantitative research found that three in four workplaces (77%) reported having an employee smoking policy, with general public policies (where applicable) slightly more common (82%). Where employee policies were in place, these tended not to be formalised in writing. The likelihood of having a policy reduced with the size of the parent organisation and of the workplace.
• Half (48%) had a policy that banned employee smoking, and three in ten (28%) restricted smoking to certain areas. The type of work clearly influenced the policy choice, with the smaller, indoor and on-site workplaces being more likely to implement a total ban, while the outdoor manual sectors were least likely to have any policy.
• One in three workplaces (33%) required employees to work in an area where smoking was not banned, rising to six in ten (60%) in the leisure and hospitality industry. Most areas where smoking was permitted were ventilated, although often using an open window or door. Furthermore, the belief that such ventilation mitigated the health risks of passive smoking was common and could prove a disincentive to implementing a full ban in many workplaces.
• It was clear from the in-depth interviews with managers and staff that policies 'on the ground' were not always as stated in the survey. All businesses, however, did have fairly well understood rules regarding where and when staff could smoke, even if they did not have a formal policy.
• The reasons for the introduction of a smoking policy included the desire of owners, managers, staff or customers, a company takeover, a head office policy being implemented and a belief that legislation would be introduced.

4.1 Quantitative Study

4.1.1 Responsibility for smoking policy

In interpreting the findings, it is important to note that most respondents in SME workplaces (76%) were responsible for both deciding on and implementing their own smoking policies, whilst most respondents in workplaces of larger organisations (72%) were only responsible for implementing policies decided elsewhere, usually at head office. Consequently, policies in workplaces of larger organisations were likely to vary less by the number of employees at the workplace than those of SME organisations (for further details see Appendix A).

4.1.2 Presence and type of general public smoking policy

Businesses that were visited by members of the general public (86%) were asked about policies relating to the general public. This applied to the great majority of workplaces in the retail and wholesale (98%), leisure and hospitality (92%) and social and personal services (91%) sectors.

Table 4.1: Percentage of workplaces with different types of general public 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 (1415)	57%	21%	4%	18%
All SME workplaces (914)	55%	21%	4%	19%
All workplaces in large organisations (501)	64%	23%	2%	10%
Retail & wholesale (455)	73%	9%	2%	15%
Finance, real estate and other business (227)	68%	11%	3%	18%
Construction (93)	63%	16%	1%	20%
Social & personal services (92)	62%	23%	2%	13%
Transport & storage (67)	46%	29%	-	25%
Manufacturing (165)	44%	38%	3%	15%
Agriculture, forestry etc (66)	41%	22%	1%	36%
Leisure & hospitality (196)	22%	46%	15%	15%
Base: All workplaces with general public on premises

Four in five of these workplaces (82%) had a policy. Workplaces in large organisations were more likely to have a policy (90%) than SME workplaces (81%).

These policies ranged from those allowing smoking everywhere to those that banned smoking completely. As shown in Table 4.1, the majority of workplaces (78%) restricted smoking in the workplace, to a greater or lesser extent. Six in ten (57%) banned smoking everywhere on the premises, and two in ten (21%) established smoking restrictions or designated smoking areas in the workplace. Workplaces in large organisations were more likely than those in SMEs to ban smoking throughout the workplace. Two in ten workplaces (18%) had no policy, and only 4% had a policy that permitted members of the general public to smoke anywhere on the premises. These tended to be amongst the leisure and hospitality sector, where 15% permitted smoking everywhere.

There were marked differences across the various business sectors with regards to the type of policy implemented, as shown in Table 4.1. 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 smoking by the general public on their premises. There was a split in the traditionally outdoor-based sectors, with the construction sector much more likely to have a complete ban (63%) than the primary industries such as agriculture (41%) or the transport and storage sectors (46%). This could be related to health and safety issues for the construction industry.

Workplaces from the leisure and hospitality sector were a distinct group in their own right, being most likely to have a policy which allowed smoking everywhere (15%) and, by far, least likely to have one which banned smoking everywhere (22%). Related to the differences by sector, organisations carrying out mostly manual work were less likely (46%) to have a ban on smoking on the premises than those carrying out mostly non-manual work (66%).

General public smoking policies were also affected by the size of the workplace, as illustrated in Table 4.2¹. Within both SME and large organisations, smaller workplaces were less likely to have a general public smoking policy at all, but more likely to have implemented a total ban. In contrast, the larger workplaces were more likely to have a policy, and this was more likely to restrict smoking to designated areas.

Table 4.2: Percentage of workplaces with different types of general public 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 (1415)	57%	21%	4%	18%
All SME workplaces (914)	55%	21%	4%	19%
2-4 employees (281)	60%	11%	5%	24%
5-9 employees (242)	58%	19%	5%	17%
10-49 employees (240)	47%	36%	4%	12%
50-250 employees (150)	36%	52%	3%	10%
All workplaces in large organisations (501)	64%	23%	2%	10%
2-9 employees (156)	70%	14%	3%	13%
10-49 employees (184)	71%	19%	1%	9%
50-249 employees (100)	52%	35%	*	10%
250+ employees (59)	31%	69%	-	*
Base: All workplaces with general public on premises

Whilst eight in ten (82%) had a general public policy, only 34% had a formal written policy. There was, however, a clear distinction here between the large organisations (68%) and SMEs (28%). Within both SME and large organisations, the larger workplaces were more likely to have formal written policies, as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Percentage of organisations with a formal, written general public smoking policy by the size of the workplace (%)

SME Organisation (757)		Large Organisation (447)
ALL WORKPLACES (914)	28%	ALL WORKPLACES (501)	68%
2 to 4 employees (213)	21%	2-9 employees (156)	62%
5 to 9 employees (199)	30%	10-49 employees (184)	71%
10 to 49 employees (210)	34%	50-249 employees (100)	68%
50 to 250 employees (135)	56%	250+ employees (59)	92%
Base: All workplaces with general public on premises

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

4.1.4 When employees are allowed to smoke

Whilst smoking policies often implement restrictions on where employees may smoke, restrictions can also be placed on when smoking breaks can be taken. Only 12% of those with a policy refused to allow their employees to take smoking breaks (Figure 4.1). Half (50%) allowed smoking breaks only during official breaks, while three in ten (31%) allowed their employees to take a smoking break at any time. Only 4% permitted their employees to smoke while working.

Figure 4.1: Percentage of workplaces with each type of time restriction on smoking by size of organisation (%)

Workplaces of large organisations with a policy were more likely (68%) to only allow employees to smoke during official breaks than those from SMEs (46%). This may be a reflection of the high proportion of large organisations (52%) from the retail and wholesale sector, as workplaces from this sector with a policy were generally more likely (63%) to restrict smoking breaks to official breaks than those from other sectors.

These figures cover the eight in ten workplaces with a policy. It is worth remembering that a fifth of workplaces (22%) did not have a smoking policy at all. In principle, smoking in these workplaces would be allowed at any time. In reality, in half (48%) of workplaces with no policy, no employees smoked so the situation would not arise.

Looking in more detail at those with a policy, time restrictions imposed by employee smoking policies also varied according to the type of working environment (Figure 4.2). Among workplaces with a policy, those carrying out mostly manual work were more likely (55%) to restrict smoking breaks to official breaks than those carrying out mostly non-manual work (43%). In terms of where the work was carried out, workplaces where employees worked mostly outdoors and off-site were generally less strict than those where employees worked indoors and on-site, with the former being more likely to allow employees to smoke while working or to take a smoking break at anytime. This is reflected in the sectors that tend to do work outdoors and off-site, with 16% of workplaces from the construction sector allowing employees to smoke while working.

Figure 4.2: Percentage of workplaces with each type of time restriction on smoking by working environment (%)

The number of employees in a workplace also seemed to affect the break policy which the organisation had in place. Whilst there was little variation amongst workplaces from large organisations, the size of the workplace did impact on the break policy adopted by SMEs. The smallest SME workplaces (with two to four employees) were less likely than larger SME workplaces to allow official breaks (38%) and most likely (21%) not to allow smoking breaks at any time.

4.1.6 Whether employees are required to work in smoking areas

It was important to establish what, if any, provisions were made in areas where smoking was permitted in the workplace. Over a third (34%) of workplaces that restricted smoking to designated areas did require employees to work in areas where smoking was not banned. This equated to 9% of all workplaces.

It is worth bearing in mind that the true figure will be higher, as those without a policy and those with a policy allowing employees to smoke everywhere, by definition, did not protect their employees from having to work in smoking areas. If these figures are combined, 33% of all workplaces required their employees to work in an area where smoking was not banned. At the time of the interview, not all of these workplaces had employees who smoked, so, in reality, only 21% of workplaces ran the risk of employees having to work where someone was smoking. However, should a smoker join such an organisation in the future, then there would be nothing in place to prevent this situation from arising.

Workplaces in large organisations were less likely (11%) than those working for SMEs (36%) to require employees to work in areas where smoking was not banned. Furthermore, perhaps unsurprisingly, workplaces in the leisure and hospitality sector were most likely (60%) to require this from their employees.

4.1.7 Ventilation in use and attitudes to ventilation

Whilst ventilation does make working conditions more pleasant for those in workplaces in areas where smoking is permitted, it does not necessarily reduce the dangers of passive smoking. The majority of those with designated smoking areas did provide at least some ventilation (81%), with three quarters (76%) stating that all the smoking areas in the workplace were ventilated. One in ten (10%) did not have any of their smoking areas ventilated.

Figure 4.4: Percentage of SME workplaces with all smoking areas ventilated by size of workplace (%)

Resources seem to be an issue here once again, with SME workplaces being less likely (74%) than workplaces in large organisations (92%) to have all the smoking areas ventilated (Figure 4.4). For SME organisations, the number of employees at the workplace was an important factor in the likelihood of having ventilation, with the larger workplaces most likely to have all smoking areas ventilated. There was no difference by size of workplace for workplaces of large organisations.

Table 4.8 details the methods of ventilation that were used.

Table 4.8: Ventilation methods used by size of organisation (%)

	Total (709)	SME (486)	Large organisations (223)
Open window/door	54%	56%	35%
Mechanical ventilation	41%	40%	47%
Outdoor/open air area	18%	17%	32%
Air Filtration system	7%	7%	8%
Base: All workplaces where some or all employee smoking areas are ventilated

The majority of those claiming to ventilate areas where smoking was permitted were using 'natural' methods of ventilation, with over half (54%) relying on an open window or door, and one in five (18%) saying smoking areas were outdoors. Indeed, over half (55%) of all organisations with some form of ventilation relied solely on these 'natural methods' of ventilation. Mechanical ventilation was utilised by two in five workplaces with ventilation (41%), and only 7% had an air filtration system. Workplaces in large organisations were less likely to use an open window or door, but more likely to have an outdoor smoking area than SME workplaces.

There was great variation in the type of ventilation used across the business sectors. Those from the transport and storage and the finance sectors were more likely (68%) than those from other sectors to rely on an open window or door, while those from the construction (30%) and agriculture (40%) sectors were more likely to use outdoor smoking areas.

Other sectors were more likely to have other methods of ventilation installed. Workplaces with ventilation from the leisure and hospitality (66%), the manufacturing (45%) and the social and personal service (45%) sectors were more likely than others to have mechanical ventilation. Air filtration methods were really only used by the leisure and hospitality sectors, where a quarter of those with any ventilation (23%) had adopted this method.

Size of workplace was once again a factor here, particularly amongst the SME workplaces with ventilation. Only three in ten (30%) SME workplaces with ventilation with between two and four employees had mechanical ventilation, rising to six in ten (59%) SME workplaces with 50 to 250 employees.

Despite current scientific evidence to the contrary, the majority of respondents (69%) believed that the ventilation of smoking areas reduced the health risks associated with passive smoking. Those who worked in organisations where smoking was banned throughout the premises were less likely (64%) to believe ventilation reduced the risks than those who worked where smoking was restricted (75%). This belief could result in organisations believing that well-ventilated smoking areas would remove the health risks of passive smoking to other employees, which could act as a barrier to implementing a total ban.

4.2 Qualitative Study

4.2.1 Range of policies

The qualitative case studies were selected to include businesses with a range of smoking policies. Their selection was determined by their answers to the survey. Thus, the case studies included the following range of reported policies:

• smoking is not permitted anywhere on the premises
• smoking is restricted to smoking room/designated areas
• do not have a policy.

However, the range of situations actually encountered was far more varied than this. In case studies where survey responses had indicated that smoking was not permitted anywhere on the premises, the businesses did in fact allow smoking in certain areas. There were unwritten rules regarding where smoking was allowed, however, and these were generally followed by smokers. Staff had to stand outside at the rear of buildings or in company car parks in order to take their cigarette breaks, so that they were out of sight of customers. In one instance, staff in a hotel were also able to use empty rooms/offices for smoking with the permission of their manager. Occasionally, staff using these unofficial areas began to encroach back into spaces designated as non-smoking. In one manufacturing case study, the policy of no smoking anywhere on the premises actually translated, on a day-to-day basis, into smoking being permitted anywhere, including whilst staff were working.

In those case studies where smoking was restricted to designated rooms or areas, a smoking room was provided, or people were allowed to smoke at the rear of premises, often in a shelter provided for them. As described above, staff generally also used fire exits, back doors and loading areas. Those who were provided with shelters described them as being basic sheds or outside storage areas.

Companies that did not have a policy on smoking did in fact have well understood rules about smoking. The situations on the ground in these companies varied in the same ways as those in companies with a stated policy. For example, one case study did in fact have a fairly structured informal policy, which was closely linked to the customer smoking policy. Smoking was allowed anywhere outside the buildings; however, staff used a particular bench or shelter when they took their smoke breaks.

As has been discussed, once the businesses had been visited and interviews with staff and managers carried out, the situation on the ground did not always match the answers given in the survey. Firstly, there were businesses where the initial contact had said that they had a policy of no smoking anywhere, or smoking only in designated areas, but admitted, when visited, that this was not the case. Additionally, there were businesses which had reported having a formal policy, but staff were not aware of it. Those businesses who had stated that they did not have a smoking policy did, in reality, have well understood rules as to where and when staff could smoke, even if this was not stated in a formal policy. In practice, the experience of staff in businesses which had reported not having a policy, and those which had, was not always vastly different. The range of situations encountered on the ground was similar to the options given in the survey, but was often more nuanced than these suggested. The situations included the following:

• the owner/manager/HR contact stated initially that they had a policy of no smoking anywhere inside but then admitted that staff were allowed to smoke anywhere in the business
• the owner/manager/HR contact stated initially that they had a policy of no smoking anywhere inside, but then admitted that staff were allowed to smoke in some areas
• the policy was stated in the survey to be formal but the owner/ manager/HR contact later admitted that it was actually informal
• the policy was said by the owner/ manager/HR contact to be formal, but staff were not aware of this and believed that it was informal
• the areas used for smoking were actually more numerous than had been claimed, with or without the awareness of management.

In most businesses, there was some bending of the understood rules about smoking. This could be in terms of staff smoking in areas where they were not really allowed to (for instance, fire escapes) or staff taking more smoking breaks than was allowed. Managers generally knew about the first type of rule bending but were not always aware of the second. The way in which policies were implemented is discussed further in Chapter 5.

In line with the quantitative findings, the qualitative study also found that the type of work and working environment affected the type of smoking policy adopted by a workplace. The larger businesses in the qualitative sample did seem more likely to have a formal smoking policy, and their staff adhered more strictly to it. Those within the manual or leisure and hospitality industries did also seem less likely to have a smoking policy, or to have one that was very restrictive.

4.2.2 Introducing smoking policies

As policies varied between companies, so did the introduction of them. In small companies, where the main contact was the owner/manager, policy introduction and implementation was usually their responsibility. Policies in larger businesses were more likely to be handled by the HR department, following the policy determined by their Head Office. Of those companies who had a formal policy (and followed it in reality), policies were introduced in a variety of ways. In some places, policies had been introduced gradually as the company became more professional or the company culture developed. In other places, policies were developed to address arguments between smoking and non-smoking staff. In particular, these policies aimed to address the needs of non-smoking staff.

There were a range of reasons identified as leading to the introduction of a smoking policy. These included:

• a head office or group policy being applied in a branch

• a company being taken over

• the desire of the owner or manager to reduce or eliminate smoking from the working environment
  • this could arise from their own preferences, views about health risks, beliefs about how the business would be viewed by customers or other stakeholders, or a combination of these
• a belief that legislation would be introduced in the near future

• worries about health and safety
  • this arose in the leisure and hospitality sector, in relation to food and drinks preparation and serving, and in the manufacturing and construction sector, in the context of flammable materials
• staff requests

• customer requests.

The reasons for introducing a policy, and the way this was done, had a major impact on how effective it was, and whether any problems were encountered. This is discussed further below.