Research paperDo workplace policies work? An examination of the relationship between alcohol and other drug policies and workers’ substance use
Introduction
A health issue gaining prominence in Australia and internationally is the prevalence of employee alcohol and other drug (AOD) use (Frone, 2006, Pidd et al., 2008, Roche et al., 2008). In 2013, approximately 36% of Australian employees consumed alcohol at risky or high risk levels, and 16% had used at least one illicit drug in the past 12 months (Roche, Pidd, & Kostadinov, 2015). Similar patterns were found for the United States, with 14% of employees using illicit drugs and 35% drinking at risky levels (Frone, 2006, Frone, 2008).
Workforce alcohol and other drug use is associated with substantial negative consequences (Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2006), including workplace injuries (Spicer, Miller, & Smith, 2003), missing work, poor quality work, arriving late/leaving early, doing less work, arguing with colleagues (Amick et al., 1999), withdrawal behaviours (Lehman & Simpson, 1992), absenteeism (Bass et al., 1996, Pidd et al., 2006) and presenteeism (de Graff, Tuithof, van Dorsselaer, & ten Have, 2012). It has been estimated that alcohol-related absenteeism alone costs businesses up to $2 billion per year in Australia (Roche et al., in 2015), $4 billion in America, and €9 billion in the European Union (Anderson and Baumberg, 2006, Bouchery et al., 2011).
The workplace provides an important opportunity to prevent, identify and manage health problems among employees, including AOD use. An increasingly common strategy is the implementation of workplace AOD policies (Pidd and Roche, 2006, Pidd and Roche, 2014). These policies seek to curb employees’ substance use and promote a safe and healthy working environment.
Workplace AOD policies may comprise one or more diverse strategies, including written policies prohibiting the use of alcohol or drugs at work; providing counselling and assistance; and alcohol/drug testing. The policies of an organisation are likely to influence perceptions of acceptable employee behaviour, the physical availability of drugs and alcohol in the workplace, and the extent to which colleagues are perceived to use alcohol or drugs at work. These factors are all associated with employee substance use (Ames and Grube, 1999, Ames and Janes, 1992, Bacharach et al., 2002, Biron et al., 2011, Frone, 2009). Workplace policies therefore have potential to prevent and reduce AOD use and related harms among employees.
There are promising indications that workplace AOD policies may be beneficial in reducing employee substance use, and thus prevent the above costs and negative outcomes. For instance, evidence consistently demonstrates that employees are more likely to quit smoking if their workplace has supporting policies or programs in place (e.g. Alexander et al., 2010, Bauer et al., 2005, Kouvonen et al., 2012). However, the relationship between workplace policies and alcohol and illicit drug use has been less thoroughly explored. This is in spite of the growing international interest in, and use of, drug testing (Pidd & Roche, 2014).
In addition, there is little research available on the nature, extent or impact of AOD workplace policy implementation, either in Australia or internationally. A 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey found that the majority of organisations in America prohibited alcohol and drug use (91% and 93%, respectively), but that provision of support for AOD problems was much less common (36%) (Linnan et al., 2008). Australian data from 1996 similarly found a high prevalence of smoking- and alcohol-free workplaces (46% and 77%, respectively) (Richmond, Heather, & Holt, 1996b), and fewer tobacco and alcohol programs (43% and 24%, respectively) (Richmond, Heather, & Holt, 1996a) among the top 600 companies in Australia.
However, there is a paucity of current nationally representative data regarding workplace AOD policies in Australia. Organisations seeking to promote healthier behaviours amongst their employees urgently require up-to-date, accurate, and evidence-based information regarding the nature, extent, and effectiveness of such policies. The current study therefore sought to explore the prevalence and types of AOD policies present within Australian workplaces and industries, and the relationship between AOD policies and substance use behaviours among employees who drink or use drugs.
Section snippets
Dataset
This study involved secondary analyses of the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS). The NDSHS is a national triennial cross-sectional study of awareness, attitudes and behaviour concerning alcohol, tobacco and other drugs amongst Australians aged 12 years and over. The NDSHS utilises a multi-stage stratified sampling technique. Data are weighted by age, gender, and geographical location to provide a nationally representative sample of the total Australian population. The survey
Demographic characteristics
Demographic characteristics of interest were age, sex, gross personal income, marital status, education (completed high school yes/no), rurality and industry. Rurality (major cities/inner regional and outer regional/remote) is a measure of participants’ location at the time of survey completion, based on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Industry of occupation was classified according to the Australian and New Zealand Standard
Analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS version 22. Frequency analyses were conducted with weighted data using SPSS complex samples analysis to account for the sampling design, and explored the distribution of demographic characteristics, health behaviours, and workplace policies, as well as associations between variables. The relationship between five dependent variables (1. alcohol consumption; 2. drug use; 3. absence due to alcohol or drug use; 4. worked under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and 5.
Sample characteristics
The sample comprised 56.2% males and 43.8% females, with an average age of 40.6 years (SE: 0.15). The majority of participants were married (69.3%), had finished high school (62.5%) and resided in major cities (66.9%). Personal income was relatively normally distributed, with the largest proportion of participants (14.1%) earning a gross salary of $1000–$1299 per week. The industry in which the greatest proportion of participants worked was healthcare and social assistance (12.4%), while the
Discussion
Workplace AOD policies represent an important but underutilised opportunity to promote healthy employee behaviour. This study explored the prevalence and impact of AOD policies in Australian workplaces. It is the first study to do so using a nationally representative dataset. A differential effect was found for various types of policies and their impact on either high risk drinking and/or drug use. Having ‘any’ AOD policy in place, or having a policy on ‘use’ or ‘use plus assistance’, was
Limitations
A limitation of the current study is the self-report methodology utilised by the NDSHS. Despite a large overall sample size, the number of participants who reported engaging in some substance use behaviours was quite small. This may be due in part to the socially sensitive nature of the questions and resultant desirability bias. As the policies significantly associated with alcohol consumption (‘use’ and ‘use plus assistance’) were the most common types of policies, it is possible that in a
Conclusions
This study is the first to explore the prevalence of AOD workplace policies in Australia using a nationally representative dataset, and the relationship between policies and substance use behaviours. Results indicate that some workplace AOD policies are negatively associated with high risk alcohol consumption and drug use. There is scope for Australian organisations, and particularly those in industries with high levels of substance use, to implement more effective AOD policies. This could
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
References (32)
- et al.
Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006
American Journal of Preventative Medicine
(2011) - et al.
How effective is drug testing as a workplace safety strategy? A systematic review of the evidence
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2014) - et al.
Occupational status, work-site cessation programs and policies and menthol smoking on quitting behaviors of US smokers
Addiction
(2010) - et al.
Alcohol availability and workplace drinking: Mixed method analyses
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
(1999) - et al.
A cultural approach to conceptualizing alcohol and the workplace
Health and Research World
(1992) - et al.
Employee drinking practices and work performance
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
(1999) - et al.
Alcohol in Europe: A public health perspective
(2006) Australian and New Zealand standard industrial classification (ANZIC)
(1993)Australian standard geographical classification (ASGC)
(2011)2010 National drug strategy household survey report
(2011)
Driven to drink: Managerial control, work-related risk factors, and employee problem drinking
The Academy of Management Journal
Employee drug use, demographic characteristics, work reactions, and absenteeism
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
A longitudinal assessment of the impact of smoke-free worksite policies on tobacco use
American Journal of Public Health
Work-related risk factors and employee substance use: Insights from a sample of Israeli blue-collar workers
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Comparing the effects on work performance of mental and physical disorders
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Inquiry into strategies to reduce harmful alcohol consumption: Final report
Cited by (39)
Ethnoracial differences in workplace drug testing and policies on positive drug tests in the United States
2023, Drug and Alcohol DependenceWorkplace alcohol and other drug policy and support services in the United States, 2015–2019
2023, International Journal of Drug PolicyPatterns and correlates of workplace and non-workplace cannabis use among Canadian workers before the legalization of non-medical cannabis
2021, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :However, results were not entirely consistent with this paradigm because perceptions of a supervisor's ability to manage use/impairment and awareness of workplace substance use policies were not related to workplace use. One study found basic workplace use policies were insufficient to reduce workplace drug use, whereas more comprehensive policies were effective (Pidd et al., 2016). Our survey did not assess the nature of the policy, which may have led to the lack of association.