healthscotland.com

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.