Description
Phase one of the research comprised of a summary of key literature pertaining to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. The aim of phase one was principally to highlight the major research undertaken and key issues of importance so as to inform the latter research phases of the project.
The Impact of
Al cohol & Other
Dr ugs in the
Wor kpl ace
Final Project Report 2006
A collaborative project between SafeWork SA (Department of Administrative and
Information Services) and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide
Health Service)
Lindsay Breugem
Lyn Barnett
Simone Cormack
Valerie O’Keeffe
Marina Bowshall
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 ii
Project Management
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project is a collaborative
partnership between SafeWork SA (Department for Administrative and Information Services)
and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide Health Service). The
project has been jointly coordinated by these lead agencies, with the project management
team consisting of the following members:
Lyn Barnett
Manager, Retail and Transport Team
SafeWork SA
Simone Cormack
Director, Population Health Programs Division & Deputy Executive Director
Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia
Valerie O’Keeffe
Chief Adviser, Human Factors
SafeWork SA
Marina Bowshall
Principal Consultant, Policy & Communication
Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia)
Kay Loechel
Acting Chief Adviser, Human Factors
SafeWork SA
The research for this project has been undertaken by Lindsay Breugem, Senior Research
Officer, under the direction of the project management team. The project management
team gratefully acknowledges the work of Lindsay who conducted the literature review,
designed and delivered the survey and coordinated the stakeholder workshop. It is the
quality of Lindsay’s work that has resulted in the success of the project and this high quality
report.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
iii
Acknowledgments
The project team wishes to sincerely thank all those involved in this research project. In
particular, sincere appreciation is extended to Workcover Corporation for providing initial
funding for the research officer to carry out this project. In addition, thanks are extended to
members of the project reference group as follows:
Steve Allsop (Director, National Drug Research Institute)
Kim Daniel (SA Unions Representative)
Carolyn David (Consultant, Traineeship and Apprenticeship Services)
Ryan Elson (Adviser, Workplace Relations, Business SA)
David Frith (Director, Workplace Policy and Business Services, Business SA)
Janet Hall (Team Leader, Health, Safety, Environment and Injury Management, Business SA)
James Harrison (Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies)
Kay Loechel (Prevention and Injury Management Consultant, Workcover Corporation)
Ken Pidd (Senior Research Officer, National Centre for Education & Training on Addiction)
Sophie Pointer (Assistant Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies)
Beryl Rowan (Vice President, Recruitment and Consulting Services Association SA)
Wendy Wells (Team Leader, Traineeship and Apprenticeship Services)
The expert guidance and continuous feedback provided by members of the reference group
has been a great strength of this project and the time and contribution of all members has
been greatly appreciated.
Thanks are also extended to the 110 South Australian workplaces that participated in the
telephone survey conducted for this research, and the seven workplaces that participated in
the pilot of this survey. The support and contribution offered by these workplaces helped to
ensure positive outcomes for this research and has provided an insight into issues facing
South Australian workplaces when addressing alcohol and other drug related harm. Their
participation is greatly valued by all involved.
Sincere appreciation is offered to those who attended the stakeholder workshop in May
2006. The success of this phase of the research is directly linked to the motivation and
enthusiasm displayed by those who contributed their expertise to the discussion on the day.
There have been a number of people from various agencies who have provided advice and
guidance as required during the course of this project. The project team wishes to thank
staff at SafeWork SA, Workcover Corporation, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia
and other agencies that have been involved with this project. The project team is grateful for
the goodwill extended by all.
Lastly, the collaborative partnership between the two lead agencies, SafeWork SA and Drug
and Alcohol Services South Australia, must be acknowledged as the key strength in ensuring
the success of this project.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 iv
Contents
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................1
CONTEXT...........................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................................................................................2
Phase One...................................................................................................................2
Phase Two...................................................................................................................5
Phase Three.................................................................................................................7
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION...................................9
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................16
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 1
Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary............................................................19
APPENDIX 2
Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results....................................................................39
APPENDIX 3
Phase Three Summary Report: Stakeholder Workshop.....................................................83
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
1
BACKGROUND
The South Australian Government held a Drugs Summit in 2002 which resulted in the
announcement of 35 initiatives to address issues related to alcohol and other drugs in the
South Australian community. The workplace setting was identified as a key area for
investigation and in 2003 it was recommended that:
A project be undertaken to address the current knowledge gap in key industries in
relation to the effects of drugs and alcohol in the workplace and recommend
options for improved prevention and implementation strategies. Initially a scoping
of the project will be undertaken to determine the parameters of a major research
project which will: establish baseline data to consider the extent to which drugs
and alcohol impact on safety, health and welfare in workplaces in South Australia;
conduct an exhaustive literature review; conduct extensive industry consultation;
identify the procedures and tools in place in SA that address drugs and alcohol in
the workplace and the effectiveness of these prevention strategies. (South
Australian Government 2003).
The resultant project, The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace, has been
jointly coordinated by SafeWork SA (Department of Administrative and Information
Services) and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide Health Service).
Project management has consisted of a project team from both agencies and strategic
guidance has been provided through a high level reference group with members from the
business, union and academic sectors.
The aim of this project was to assemble the existing evidence for the nature and extent of
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces and recommended practice in
preventing and responding to that harm. The project consisted of three linked phases of
research; a literature summary, telephone survey with South Australian workplaces, and a
workshop with key stakeholders. Key outputs for the project include three research reports
(see appendices 1-3) detailing findings from research activities undertaken and a series of
recommendations outlining priorities for future action.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 2
CONTEXT
The rationale for addressing alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is based on
the recognition that most people are in employment and many people consume drugs,
particularly alcohol. Therefore, the workplace is likely to reflect the alcohol and other drug
issues experienced in the general community. Alcohol and other drugs burden individuals,
industry and society in terms of health, social and economic costs and as such signal a major
public health problem.
The workplace presents particular challenges when attempting to address alcohol and other
drug related issues, in part due to the potential for serious harm arising from accidents,
injuries and productivity implications. Alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace
may manifest in terms of physical harm, such as fatalities and injuries, and productivity
related implications, such as a reduction in the available workforce or poor performance. In
addition, alcohol and other drugs adversely impact workplace culture and morale and the
health and welfare of the workforce. This project specifically sought to investigate the
impact of alcohol and illicit drug use and related harm on the workplace.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Phase One
Phase one of the research comprised of a summary of key literature pertaining to alcohol
and other drug related harm in the workplace (full report available – Appendix 1). The aim
of phase one was principally to highlight the major research undertaken and key issues of
importance so as to inform the latter research phases of the project. The literature review
has been divided into two broad sections exploring harms resulting from alcohol and other
drugs in the workplace, and responses to these harms.
A key finding from the literature review is that there is a paucity of quality evidence
demonstrating the impact of alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. In
addition, there are serious reservations regarding the breadth and quality of existing data
collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The lack of comprehensive
research and data collections supports an imprecise representation of alcohol and other
drug related harm in the workplace and impedes responses (both within workplaces and at
a service level) to the issue. Despite the lack of comprehensive research and data
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
3
collections, the available evidence indicates that alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace is a serious issue.
Alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces can manifest in terms of physical harms
(e.g. fatalities and injuries) and productivity related harms (e.g. poor performance,
workforce reduction). In terms of physical harms, alcohol has been found to be a
contributing factor in an estimated 4% of work-related fatalities (National Occupational
Health & Safety Commission 1998) and between 3-11% of workplace injuries (National
health & Medical Research Council 1997). Other drugs are estimated to contribute to 2% of
work-related fatalities [no reliable data exists examining the relationship between other
drugs and workplace injuries]. In total, it is estimated that alcohol and other drugs are
contributing factors in at least 5% of work-related fatalities. (National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission 1998).
In 1998-99 alcohol and other drug use resulted in productivity related costs exceeding $2.9
billion in Australia (Collins & Lapsley 2002). These costs were borne through a reduction in
the available workforce (due to illness or premature death) and absenteeism. In addition to
these costs, in 1992-93 it was found that drug-related workplace accidents resulted in costs
of over $1.5 billion, of which the cost to employers was estimated to be 650 million dollars
(Phillips 2001). Alcohol and other drugs can affect workplace productivity in a number of
ways including; increased absenteeism, lateness, staff turnover, accidents, increased workers
compensation premiums and reduced performance (Phillips 2001).
The prevalence of alcohol and other drug use or impairment at work is difficult to gauge
due to the nature of these activities. The 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey
reports that approximately 4.4% of all Australians went to work affected by alcohol, whilst
2% of Australians went to work affected by illicit drugs. In addition, over 6% of participants
reported that the workplace was their usual place of consumption of alcohol (Australian
Institute of Health & Welfare 2005).
One of the most important factors to explore when examining the issue of alcohol and other
drug related harm in workplaces is the relationship between consumption and impairment.
It does not necessarily follow that a person is impaired simply because they have consumed
alcohol or other drugs. A range of factors must be taken into consideration, including
patterns of consumption and the relative effects of consumption on the workplace.
There is a range of responses which workplaces can implement to address potential and
actual alcohol and other drug related harm. The main responses include; workplace alcohol
and other drug policies, employee assistance programs and controls on use (including drug
testing programs).
When examining potential responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace, it is important to consider the legislative obligations employers and employees
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 4
are required to comply with in respect to alcohol and other drugs. Under the South
Australian Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act (1986), employers have a duty to
ensure a safe working environment and safe systems of work are provided for staff. Section
21 of the Act also specifically requires that employees ensure they are not, by the
consumption of alcohol or a drug, in such a state as to endanger their own safety at work or
the safety of any other person at work.
Workplace alcohol and other drug policies are largely advocated as a first level response to
problems in the workplace. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000)
recommends that “Every Australian workplace should have an AOD [alcohol and other
drug] policy as part of their broader occupational health and safety requirement, ad as part
of their insurance arrangements.” It is important that policies are developed consultatively
and have an education and dissemination plan embedded within the policy to ensure staff
awareness.
Despite a lack of sound evidence evaluating the effectiveness of employee assistance
programs in addressing alcohol and other drug problems in the workplace these programs
have been widely accepted and implemented by workplaces and do provide one avenue
where employees and employers can obtain assistance (Calogero, Midford et al 2001;
Loxley, Tombourou et al 2004).
The most contentious effort to address alcohol and other drugs in the workplace is drug
testing. There is a range of criticisms directed at testing programs. Principally, concerns have
been raised regarding significant limitations in these programs, as they do not have the
ability to accurately determine the amount of drug consumed, the time of consumption or
the level of impairment experienced as a result of consumption. Whilst there is no
consensus in the literature regarding the efficacy or appropriateness of workplace testing
programs, the predominant conclusion is that testing is not justifiable as a routine measure
for either preventing or reducing drug related harm in the workplace. (Pidd n.d). Workplace
testing programs should not be implemented as a stand alone response but, if
considered, should be incorporated as part of a comprehensive approach to workplace
alcohol and other drug related harm.
The literature also highlighted the importance of recognising the role of the work
environment as a precipitating factor in employee alcohol or other drug use. The structural,
physical and psychosocial aspects of the work environment can have a profound impact on
employees and workplace culture can influence the acceptability of work-related alcohol or
other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
5
The findings from the literature review highlight that a range of issues associated with
alcohol and other drugs in the workplace are under-researched. Specifically, further
research is required to determine the effectiveness of specific responses in reducing harm in
the workplace. In addition, the insufficient evidence base examining the extent of alcohol
and other drug related harm experienced by workplaces significantly hampers action in this
area. Without a clear understanding of the scope of the problems, the opportunity to
implement effective responses is diminished.
Phase Two
Phase two involved a targeted telephone survey with South Australian workplaces to identify
the strategies in place to prevent and respond to potential and actual alcohol and other drug
related harm in the workplace. The research design was exploratory and involved a
descriptive, cross-sectional method. The survey was conducted via non-probability sampling
across three industries, namely Construction, Transport and Manufacturing, with a cross-
section of small, medium and large participating workplaces. Participating workplaces were
also classified as ‘high’ or ‘low’ risk according to their worker’s compensation claims history.
A database of contacts was provided by Workcover Corporation and workplaces were
contacted between the months August – October 2005 requesting their participation.
Response to the survey was generally positive and a higher than anticipated response rate
was received for this research phase (anticipated response rate: 40%, actual response rate:
67%).
The research involved semi-qualitative telephone interviews with 110 South Australian
workplaces to develop a broader understanding of the following key areas:
? Issues affecting workplaces in relation to alcohol and other drug related harm;
? Current strategies in place to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm in
South Australian workplaces;
? The strategies workplaces are considering implementing to further respond to
alcohol and other drug related harm;
? The strategies workplaces think have had the most impact in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm;
? Areas where workplaces want greater support.
The results of the survey indicate that workplaces are generally concerned about the issue of
alcohol and other drug related harm. Workplaces indicated significant concern about the
potential impact that alcohol and other drugs may have on safety, with over seventy per
cent of workplaces indicating concerns related to safety. In addition, productivity
implications (including the effects of absenteeism) were highlighted by many workplaces as
an issue arising out of alcohol and other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 6
The most common response implemented by workplaces to address alcohol and other drug
related harm were alcohol and other drug policies, with almost nine out of ten participating
workplaces having a policy in place. Almost all workplaces with a policy used at least one
mechanism for creating awareness of the policy, with the most common method being
through the induction process. Workplaces with written policies generally had them in place
for at least 3 years. Most workplaces with written policies indicated that they had found the
policy to be a useful strategy to address alcohol and other drug related harm.
In addition to policies, workplaces used a range of specific strategies to respond to alcohol
and other drug related harm. Key findings from this research indicate that the majority of
workplaces (96%) had at least one specific strategy in place to address alcohol and other
drug related harm.
The most common strategy implemented by workplaces was provision of Employee
Assistance Programs [EAPs] and access to general counselling services, which were provided
by almost 60% of workplaces surveyed. Almost 20% of all workplaces provided health or
medical programs for staff.
Alcohol and other drug testing programs, which were utilised by almost half of participating
workplaces, were the next most common strategy utilised by workplaces. Pre-employment
testing was the most common form of testing that was undertaken. Random alcohol or other
drug testing programs were implemented by just over a quarter of all participating
workplaces.
In addition to formal strategies such as policies, testing and counselling services, workplaces
employed a range of less formal, yet equally important, strategies in their response to
alcohol and other drug related harm. Nearly a third of workplaces nominated a positive
workplace culture as a protective factor against alcohol and other drug related harm.
Workplaces recognised the value of open communication and a supportive environment in
developing a positive workplace culture. Close supervision of staff was also identified as an
important strategy for both detecting and reducing alcohol and other drug related harm.
When asked what types of strategies had the most impact in reducing alcohol and other
drug related harm, workplaces identified testing programs, education, policies and
disciplinary action as having the most impact.
Workplaces were particularly seeking avenues where greater support could be provided.
The key area that workplaces want assistance with is clarification of their rights and
responsibilities in relation to managing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. Workplaces believed this could be achieved through advice, assistance,
information and awareness.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
7
Despite being concerned about alcohol and other drug related harm and generally wanting
further assistance to respond, most workplaces were not considering implementing any
additional strategies to enhance their existing responses.
The results of this phase of the project provide a valuable snapshot of what is currently
occurring in South Australian workplaces and a basis from which to move forward. Besides
providing many avenues from which to further address the issue, the research also highlights
the need for greater support to assist workplaces to enhance their current responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm. One of the challenges for future work will be to
determine how best to harness workplaces’ concern about this issue and translate this
concern into further action.
Phase Thr ee
Phase three of the research comprised a workshop with key stakeholders to review and
discuss the findings of the previous research phases, and to pursue options for
recommendations for future action and policy development. The workshop was held in May
2006 and was attended by 21 stakeholders from diverse sectors.
Outcomes of the stakeholder workshop largely reinforced findings from the literature review
and telephone survey. In particular, participants highlighted drug testing as a major issue
and noted the lack of clarity for workplaces regarding a number of issues (principally the
availability of existing resources and services, the nature and extent of workplace drug-
related harm and issues associated with testing programs).
Stakeholders noted that effective occupational health and safety initiatives were generally
based on involvement of those affected, open communication, workplace culture, and
quality practice. It was recognised that legislation may be utilised to ensure workplaces
initiate responses to alcohol and other drugs, but to ensure sustainable and effective
responses the issue must be owned by all involved.
The key areas for future action, as identified by workshop participants, centred on ensuring
quality practice, addressing operational factors, investigating different approaches and
increasing workplace motivation to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm. In
addressing these key areas, participants noted that the following areas must be investigated
in order to move forward:
? Development of measurable outcomes and performance indicators;
? Development of parameters for workplaces to operate within and investigate
regulatory approaches;
? Improvement of education and information mechanisms;
? Development of a ‘clearinghouse’ type service to assist workplaces through access
to information, resources and referrals.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 8
Workshop participants identified a number of barriers that may impact the manner in which
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is addressed. These barriers include:
? Identifying the most appropriate legislative framework which the issue fits under;
? Cultural norms (need to recognise that workplaces reflect wider cultural norms and
also reflect problems faced in the wider community);
? Need to be cognisant of the contentious nature of the issue and the potential for
agenda driven responses;
? Legislative approaches may not yield the best results as the legislative approach is
drawn out and the paucity of evidence for effective approaches makes legislative
requirements for workplace responses difficult.
Despite these barriers, it was recognised that this project is well placed to achieve further
action in this area due to the collaborative partnership between the lead agencies, industry
representatives and key stakeholders.
The key outcomes of the stakeholder workshop centre on the following issues:
? Improved data collection practices (including an audit of existing data sources) to
ensure the scope, nature and extent of drug-related harm in workplaces can be
quantified;
? Improved availability and marketing of services and resources able to assist
workplaces to address drug-related harm, possibly through the development of a
clearinghouse service;
? Legislative approaches should be investigated thoroughly to determine potential
impacts on employers and employees and where possible existing legislative
frameworks should be utilised;
? The potential to address drug issues through existing OHS channels may be
diminished somewhat if workplaces do not perceive drugs to impact on safety. In
this case it may be more appropriate to address these issues through an industrial
relations approach;
? Limited understanding of the effectiveness and appropriateness of alcohol and
drug testing is clearly a major issue for stakeholders and requires careful attention
through provision of accurate information to ensure informed decision making can
occur.
The workshop demonstrated that it is essential to identify who will take responsibility and
leadership for driving the issue and stakeholders should be engaged to ensure a partnership
approach whereby all can own the issue. The participants in the workshop were able to
provide a valuable contribution through their varied perspectives on the issues at hand.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
9
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE ACTION
Findings from the three research phases present a largely consistent view of alcohol and
other drug related harm in workplaces. The literature review, telephone survey and
stakeholder workshop all acknowledge workplace alcohol and other drug related harm as a
serious issue warranting both further research and resources to assist workplaces to respond.
In addition, all three phases highlighted a sense of uncertainty regarding the extent of the
problem and the most appropriate ways in which to respond. Beyond this, it is also clear
from this research that strong leadership is required to address the issues and take
responsibility for driving future responses. The findings from this research form the basis for
a comprehensive set of recommendations addressing priorities in progressing the issues
arising out of this project.
The recommendations identified in this report are synthesised from the findings from all
stages of this project (literature review, industry survey and stakeholder workshop). These
recommendations have been developed recognising that major gaps exist in the current
knowledge base regarding alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. These
gaps exist within the literature, data collections and evidence for best practice responses to
workplace alcohol and other drug related harm.
The project identified the following priority areas for action:
1. Providing strategic leadership to address the impact of alcohol and other drug related
harm in South Australian workplaces.
2. Identifying and disseminating best practice workplace responses to alcohol and other
drug related harm, through appropriate resources and service provision.
3. Improving data collection practices that build on an assessment of current data sources.
4. Supporting further research investigating the effectiveness of workplace responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm (building the evidence base).
5. Developing workforce capacity to ensure high quality service provision and resource
development.
These recommendations recognise these factors and seek to address the current limitations
impeding effective responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 10
1 Leadership
This research highlights the need for strong leadership to guide future efforts in South
Australia in responding to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. Whilst
recognising that the issue needs to be owned by all stakeholders, the research findings
suggest that future responses to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace should be led by
government, supported by employee and employer representatives. Accordingly, the
following recommendations are made in support of a coordinated leadership approach for
workplace alcohol and other drug issues:
Recommendation 1.1
It is recommended that the SafeWork Advisory Committee provides support for the
development of an interagency committee that is responsible for developing a cooperative
strategy to address the risks arising from alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The
strategy should include:
? Development of an education strategy
? Improvements in data collection practices (incorporating recommendations 3.1–3.6)
? Identification of research priorities (incorporating recommendations 4.1–4.4)
? Identification of opportunities for national linkages
Recommendation 1.2
It is recommended that membership of the proposed interagency committee include
SafeWork SA, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, Equal Opportunity Commission,
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, employer and employee
representatives and others invited to participate as required. Consideration should also be
given to having at least one member from the SafeWork Advisory Committee on the
interagency committee.
Recommendation 1.3
It is recommended that the proposed interagency committee be chaired and administered
by SafeWork SA.
Recommendation 1.4
It is recommended that opportunities for strategic direction and linkages at a national level
be investigated and pursued by the proposed interagency committee.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
11
2 Education and Dissemination of Information
A key outcome of this research is recognition of the need to clarify employer and employee
responsibilities in relation to alcohol and other drugs. In particular, it was noted that
workplaces want guidance in interpreting the practical implications of existing legislation in
South Australia and assistance to make informed decisions regarding appropriate responses
to alcohol and other drugs in their workplace. These findings demonstrate the importance of
a comprehensive education and dissemination plan in South Australia to raise the issue of
workplace alcohol and other drug related harm and provide avenues where support can be
accessed.
The following recommendations support a comprehensive educative approach aimed at
dissemination of best practice evidence to workplaces:
Recommendation 2.1
It is recommended that a comprehensive education and dissemination plan be developed
detailing resources and support services available to assist workplaces in responding to
alcohol and other drugs.
Recommendation 2.2
It is recommended that the draft guidelines for responding to workplace alcohol and other
drug related harm developed in conjunction with this project be endorsed and developed
for publication. The guidelines include:
? Practical information on how to identify and assess the risks associated with
alcohol and other drugs and how best to control those risks.
? Clarification of employer and employee responsibilities under all relevant
legislation.
Recommendation 2.3
It is recommended that existing resources and expertise on alcohol and other drugs be
assembled to assist employers to make informed decisions.
Recommendation 2.4
It is recommended that existing services are enhanced through the development of a portal
website and adjunct telephone support service to provide central access to up to date
information on workplace alcohol and other drug issues and links to relevant websites and
resources.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 12
Recommendation 2.5
It is recommended that a promotion/dissemination strategy be developed that targets
employers, opinion leaders, the SafeWork SA inspectorate, business advisers, private
providers, employee and employer representatives, workers compensation insurance
providers and claims agents, and others as identified.
Recommendation 2.6
It is recommended that an evaluation plan be developed to assess the impact of
promotional campaigns and service utilisation.
Recommendation 2.7
It is recommended that workplaces are encouraged to incorporate the following
components within their response to alcohol and other drugs:
? A comprehensive policy (including dissemination plan) developed through
consultative processes
? Identification of the factors which influence work-related alcohol and other drug
use and associated problems
? A focus on positive workplace culture
? Access to employee support services (such as employee assistance programmes)
Recommendation 2.8
It is recommended that workplaces only consider implementing drug testing if it is part of a
comprehensive strategy (as per recommendations 2.2 and 2.7) to address alcohol and other
drug related harm that is developed through extensive consultation with those affected.
3 Improved Data Collection
Findings from phase one of this research indicated that there are serious limitations in terms
of the breadth and quality of data collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace. One of the key challenges in addressing the impact of alcohol and other drugs in
workplaces is ensuring workplaces are motivated to proactively address the issue. In order to
facilitate workplace responses, there is a need to provide evidence that alcohol and other
drugs constitute a serious problem which needs to be addressed. The nature and extent of
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces can only be demonstrated through
quality data. The lack of comprehensive, standardised data collection practices leaves the
nebulous understanding of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces
unchallenged.
The paucity of reliable and valid data exists across all industry and jurisdictional sectors and
has serious implications for future responses to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
Consequently, the following recommendations are made for improvements to current data
sets and collection techniques.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
13
Recommendation 3.1
It is recommended that the existing problem of inadequate baseline data be addressed
through the strategy developed by the proposed interagency committee..
Recommendation 3.2
It is recommended that an audit of existing data sets be conducted to determine gaps and
potential useability.
Recommendation 3.3
It is recommended that indicators of use, impairment and harm be identified to assist the
practical assessment of the nature and extent of workplace alcohol and other drug
problems.
Recommendation 3.4
It is recommended that relevant agencies who collect data (or have the potential to collect
data) that pertains to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace, adopt a
standardised approach for data recording to allow for ongoing analysis and comparison.
Recommendation 3.5
It is recommended that opportunities to integrate data on alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace into national data sets for occupational health and safety and workers’
compensation be investigated, in particular linkages to the National Data Set (NDS) and the
Comparative Performance Monitoring (CPM) reports.
Recommendation 3.6
It is recommended that specific probing questions in relation to alcohol and other drugs are
incorporated into the SafeWork SA accident investigation process and that these be
captured on existing databases for ongoing analysis.
4 Research Priorities
It is recognised that there is a need to improve the quality of evidence for workplace
responses to alcohol and other drug related harm. Future research should examine the
effectiveness of specific workplace interventions to inform best practice guidelines which
workplaces can follow. It is considered essential that further, well-designed research be
undertaken in order to demonstrate both the features and outcomes of best practice
responses.
Recommendation 4.1
It is recommended that controlled research be undertaken to evaluate workplace responses
to alcohol and other drug related harm in terms of improved outcomes.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 14
Recommendation 4.2
It is recommended that well designed research be undertaken that improves the collection
of data and supports the development of datasets that may be used to improve responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm.
Recommendation 4.3
It is recommended that funding for future research be investigated through grant schemes
and government funding schemes.
Recommendation 4.4
It is recommended that future research activities be undertaken with the specific intention
to enhance knowledge of incidents of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces.
These research activities should aim to complement suggested improvements to current data
collection techniques.
Note on recommendation 4.4: It is important to acknowledge the disincentives which may
contribute to under-reporting of incidents and issues arising from alcohol or other drugs in
the workplace. These disincentives may include concerns of punitive or disciplinary action
and the potential impact on workers compensation (if applicable). Further it is recognised
that not all incidents may be captured through improvements or alterations in current data
collection. There is a need therefore to initiate research activities which develop an
understanding of the existing and potential barriers to adequate data collection and the
ways in which these can be addressed.
5 Development within SafeWork SA, Drug and Alcohol
Services South Australia and Private Service Providers
In order to facilitate the achievement of improved outcomes for workplaces, it is essential
that agencies and individuals providing services and information receive appropriate training
to support high quality service provision. It is recognised that frontline professionals involved
in managing issues related to workplace alcohol and other drug harm must be provided with
adequate education and training to fulfil these roles.
Recommendation 5.1
It is recommended that SafeWork SA address the hazard of alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace with the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Inspectorate and the Help and
Early Intervention Centre. Training should be provided to the OHS inspectorate that
includes up to date information on the scope of options available to employers for
controlling the risks from alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
15
Recommendation 5.2
It is recommended that training be provided to staff at the Alcohol and Drug Information
Service and staff at the proposed telephone support service in terms of responses to
workplace alcohol and other drug issues and resources available.
Recommendation 5.3
It is recommended that service providers, such as Employee Assistance Program providers,
are engaged with to ensure that information regarding workplace alcohol and other drug
issues is consistent and accurate.
6 Carriage of the Recommendations
The recommendations outlined in this report represent the identified priorities for a
coordinated, strategic approach to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. The
implementation of these recommendations will result in significant benefits for South
Australian workplaces through enhanced service provision and the availability of high
quality resources outlining evidence based approaches. In addition, improvements in data
collection practices and a commitment to future research will yield benefits for many
stakeholders through a more complete understanding of the impact of alcohol and other
drugs in workplaces.
The recommendations are proposed in anticipation that specific resources may need to be
attached to ensure they are attained. With support from the SafeWork SA Advisory
Committee, the proposed interagency committee would be well placed to implement many
of these recommendations if endorsed.
Recommendation 6
It is recommended that the SafeWork Advisory Committee take carriage of the
recommendations outlined in this report.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 16
CONCLUSION
The research undertaken for this project emphasises that work-related alcohol and other
drug use is not a problem isolated to the individual. Due to the breadth of harms and the
potential for significant impacts, stakeholders at all levels must be engaged to enhance
existing responses and support services. Alcohol and other drug-related harm in the
workplace requires more than a response levelled at the individual; it requires a holistic,
comprehensive approach that is supported by all concerned.
It is evident that alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is critically under-
researched. The research conducted for this project demonstrates that it is essential that
further, well designed research be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of workplace
responses for reducing alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. An insufficient
evidence base, combined with inadequate data collections, hampers action and unless
addressed will inevitably lead to less than desirable outcomes. It is pertinent to also
investigate further how to integrate alcohol and other drug issues within existing frameworks
to increase chances of acceptability and reduce the burden of compliance on workplaces.
Perhaps the most encouraging component of this research is that there is clearly an impetus
to address workplace alcohol and other drug issues further. Workplaces require much more
information and direction, as they are concerned about the potential impact of alcohol and
other drugs in their workplace and it is clear that, for many, the issue of alcohol and other
drugs is a ‘hot topic’. This suggests that the timing may be right for further strategies aimed at
assisting workplaces and creating awareness of potential alcohol and other drug harms in
workplaces.
One of the key challenges for improving workplace responses to alcohol and drugs lies in
identifying who will take responsibility and leadership for driving the issue. A key challenge
will be drawing stakeholders together to ensure a partnership approach whereby all can
own the issue. However, this research project has certainly demonstrated that there is a
clear mandate to further address alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces, and
with strategic guidance and leadership positive outcomes for workplaces can be achieved.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
17
REFERENCES
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) Drug Policy 2000: A New Agenda for
Harm Reduction (Accessed: 07/03/2005). Available: www.adca.org.au/DP2000.htm
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) 2004 National Drug Strategy Household
Survey: First Results. Drug Statistics Series No. 13, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. Canberra
Calogero, C., Midford, R., Towers, T. (2001) Responding to Drug-Related harm in the
Workplace: The Role of Prevention, Counselling, and Assistance Programs in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2002) Counting the Cost: Estimates of the Social Costs of
Drug Abuse in Australia in 1998-9. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra
Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J. W., Stockwell, T., Haines, B., Scott, K., Godfrey, C., Waters, E.,
Patton, G., Fordham, R., Gray, D., Marshall, J., Ryder, D., Saggers, S., Sanci, L.,
Williams, J., Carruthers, S., Chikritzhs, T., Lenton, S., Midford, R., Snow, P., Spooner,
C. (2004) The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A review of the
evidence. National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health.
Commonwealth of Australia
National Health and Medical Research Council (1997) Workplace Injury and Alcohol - Draft
Report. Canberra
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1998) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
Phillips, M. (2001b) The Prevalence of Drug-Use and Risk of Drug-Related Harm in the
Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications.
Pidd, K. (n.d) Drugs and Alcohol "Abuse" and Testing of Workers for the Presence of Drugs
and Alcohol. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction Bedford Park
South Australian Government (2003) South Australian Drugs Summit – Tackling Drugs:
Government and Communities Working Together. Government Response: Further
Initiatives. Government of South Australia.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 18
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
19
Appendix 1
Phase One Summar y
Repor t
Literature Summary
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 20
INTRODUCTION
The following report details a summary of the literature pertaining to alcohol and other drug
[AOD] related harm in the workplace. The aim of phase one of ‘The Impact of Alcohol and
Other Drugs in the Workplace’ project is to highlight key issues in this area and provide
sufficient background information to inform further phases of the project. The report
presents an overview of the nature of alcohol and other drug harm in workplaces and the
extent to which this harm occurs. The summary is divided into two broad sections – the first
examines alcohol and other drug related harms in the workplace and the second section
details responses to these harms.
The workplace is not impervious to alcohol and other drug issues – most people are in
employment and many people consume drugs, particularly alcohol. As noted by the
National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] (1997, p43), ‘Alcohol, like many
other health issues is not compartmentalised into work and non-work settings.’ Alcohol and
other drug use are but one of many challenges workplaces must confront. The workplace
does present particular challenges due to the potential for serious harms – including social
and financial costs resulting from accidents, injuries and productivity losses. Alcohol or other
drug harm occurring in the workplace context impacts on many groups including
government, service providers, employers, employees and their co-workers, carers and
families, and the social and financial costs are borne across the community.
Note: This report adopts the South Australian Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act
(1986) definition of workplace which states; ‘“Workplace” means any place (including any
aircraft, ship or vehicle) where an employee or self-employed person works and includes
any place where such a person goes while at work.’
1 Harms
Alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace setting can be broadly conceptualised
as encompassing two key areas:
? Fatalities and injuries and;
? Productivity related concerns
In addition to these harms, there are a range of incidental harms resulting from alcohol
and/or other drug use which may impact on the workplace. These include; impacts on the
health and welfare of the workforce, reduced morale, and interference with the work
environment due to relationship problems such as violence or abuse. The following section
seeks to delineate the extent of harms based on the available evidence. Following this is an
examination of prevalence of use in the workplace and the relationship between use and
harm.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
21
1.1 Fatalities
Finding: Alcohol is a contributing factor in an estimated 4% of work-related fatalities whilst
other drugs are estimated to contribute to 2% of work-related fatalities. In total, alcohol
and/or other drugs are involved in at least 5% of work-related fatalities in Australia.
Discussion
Phillips (2001b, pp27-30) outlines the role of alcohol and other drugs in workplace fatalities
and concludes that data from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission’s
[NOHSC] second Work-Related Traumatic Fatalities Study provide a reasonable estimate of
AOD involvement in work-related fatalities that is congruent with international data.
NOHSCs report estimates that alcohol and other drugs combined contribute to at least 5%
of work-related fatalities (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1998). The
estimates for South Australia were higher with alcohol a contributing factor in at least 6.4%
of work-related fatalities, whilst other drugs were associated with 3.2% of work-related
fatalities in the period 1989-1992 (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
1999). Work-related fatalities may occur in locations external to the workplace and thus
have the potential for further impact. For example, alcohol and other drugs have been
shown to contribute to work-related road fatalities for both the working person and
bystanders (Mitchell, Driscoll et al. 2004). These results indicate that the scope of harm
attributable to work-related alcohol and other drug use spreads beyond the immediate
working environment.
The types of drugs, other than alcohol, found to be involved in work-related fatalities
include amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis and narcotics (National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission 1998, p18). Where other drugs were a factor, stimulants were the
only type of other drug to be implicated in South Australian work-related fatalities (National
Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1999, p31). It must be noted that due to
limited data availability, particularly in relation to drugs other than alcohol, these figures
may be under-representative of actual occurrences. There is also the special issue of poly-
drug use. Curry and Theodorou (2002, p258) note that poly-drug use is becoming more
widespread. There are particular concerns relating to the concurrent use of certain
substances. For example, when cannabis and alcohol are combined the interactive effects
result in increased intoxication and impairment (Curry & Theodorou 2002, p260). Clearly,
the exacerbating effects of poly-drug use need to be considered in relation to the impact on
the workplace.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 22
The Australian data appear congruent with international comparisons which show that in
one examination of work-related fatalities in the United States approximately 5% returned
positive alcohol or other drug readings in toxicology reports (Greenberg, Hamilton et al.
1999). In terms of industry specific trends, Phillips (2001b, p29) notes that ‘…risky
industries do not appear to have a much greater proportion of alcohol-related fatalities than
less hazardous industries – a finding that contradicts many popularly held opinions.’
1.2 Injuries
Finding: Alcohol use is associated with 3% to 11% of workplace injuries, whilst the
involvement of other drugs is likely to be approximately 2%.
Discussion
The NHMRC (1997, pp11-2) and Phillips (2001b, pp30-6) note the disparate nature of
estimates of alcohol and other drug involvement in workplace injury. The NHMRC (1997,
p12) concurs with the findings of three reviews which found alcohol to be a factor in
between 3 and 11% of workplace injuries. Obtaining a reliable estimate for the involvement
of drugs other than alcohol is more problematic due to a lack of available data. Considering
that drugs other than alcohol are involved in 2% of work-related fatal injuries, the potential
exists to extrapolate this figure to injuries in general, in the absence of a sound evidence
base.
English and colleagues (1995, pp219-20) determined aetiologic fractions of morbidity and
mortality caused by alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs and found that hazardous and harmful
alcohol consumption caused 7% of occupational and machine injuries. In addition, they
determined ‘…that there is sufficient evidence that alcohol causes occupational and
machine injuries.’ [emphasis in original]. The relationship between drugs other than alcohol
and occupational and machine injuries was not addressed.
There is a dearth of literature and adequate data collection regarding alcohol and other drug
involvement in fatal and non-fatal workplace injury. The evidence outlined in the preceding
sections indicates that alcohol and other drugs are associated with fatal and non-fatal
workplace injury. Whilst some examples of the prevalence of this involvement are given
here, the true extent of alcohol and other drug-related workplace injury is largely unknown,
particularly for non-fatal injury. Estimates of alcohol and other drug involvement in work
injuries are likely to be conservative due to a number of factors. For instance, the sensitive
nature of the issue may result in underreporting of incidents and further, alcohol and other
drug testing may not be routinely conducted following a work-related injury.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
23
1.3 Productivity
Finding: Alcohol and other drug use result in reduction in the workforce and absenteeism
costs which exceed $2.9 billion. Drug related workplace accidents result in costs of
approximately $1.3 billion – half of which is borne by employers.
Discussion
The breadth of productivity related harm caused through alcohol and other drug related
impairment is addressed extensively. Phillips (2001b, p36) notes that alcohol or other drug
use may affect workplace productivity in the following ways:
? Losses caused by accidents
? Increased workers’ compensation premiums resulting from increased (drug-related)
claims
? Reduced work rate and poor quality of work because of inebriation or hangover
? Increased sickness absence
? Increased staff turnover and associated costs of training replacement workers
? Increased incidence of lateness for work
? Theft and damage to plant and machinery
These productivity implications are largely supported by Collins and Lapsley (2001, p111)
who add that the morale and health of the workforce can be impacted. The Alcohol and
Other Drugs Council of Australia [ADCA] (2000b, p18) notes that work-related AOD use
can also impact the safety and productivity of co-workers, again indicating that the scope of
alcohol and other drug harm is broader than the individual.
According to Collins and Lapsley (2002, p53), alcohol and other drug use resulted in costs in
excess of 2.9 billion dollars in Australia in 1998-99 due to reduced workforce and
absenteeism; costs associated with lost productivity on-the-job were not quantifiable in their
study. Utilising data from the 1995 Industry Commission Inquiry into Work, Health and
Safety, Phillips (2001b, p37) determined that the total costs associated with drug-related
workplace accidents in 1992-3 were in excess of one and a half billion dollars. Of this
amount, the cost to employers was estimated at 650 million dollars. Whilst it may be
possible to suggest that drug use could potentially result in positive outcomes for
productivity (e.g. the use of stimulants by long distance truck drivers to combat fatigue and
facilitate more hours on the road), the overarching view is that productivity is negatively
impacted by work-related alcohol and other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 24
1.4 Use/Impairment at Work
Finding: Reliable data that provide an overall estimate of the prevalence of AOD use or
AOD related impairment at work are not available, however 4.4% of participants in the
2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey indicated they went to work affected by
alcohol and 2% went to work affected by illicit drugs.
Discussion
Due to the nature of the activity in question, it is perhaps not surprising that a sound
evidence base regarding the prevalence of use or impairment at work does not exist. The
Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities determined that ‘Surprisingly little
work has been undertaken to estimate the prevalence of intoxication or being drug-affected
at work’ (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs
2003, p274, emphasis in original). The best overall picture comes from preliminary results
from the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey which show that 4.4% of
participants reported going to work affected by alcohol and 2% went to work affected by
illicit drugs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005). In addition, just over 6% of
survey respondents reported the workplace was their usual place of consumption of alcohol
and 11% indicated that that the workplace was their usual place of consumption of
pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
2005).
Some research has been conducted to ascertain the on the job consumption of alcohol and
other drugs in specific occupational groups, however small sample size and other limiting
features preclude the ability to generalise findings. Mabbott and Hartley (1999) undertook
research which examined the use of stimulants by Western Australian heavy truck drivers
and found that 27% (n=65) of the sample self-reported stimulant use (prescription, illicit
and over the counter) to combat fatigue on the job and the most commonly used stimulant
was amphetamines. Williamson and colleagues (2001) found, in a survey of Australian long
distance heavy vehicle drivers, that over 30% rated ‘stay awake drugs’ as the most effective
strategy to combat fatigue. Results from two studies (n=4193, n=749) involving Australian
police officers found 26% reported drinking at work at least sometimes and 23% were
affected by their co-workers alcohol consumption (Davey, Obst et al. 2000b, 2001). In a
study involving South Australian construction industry pre-vocational trainees and
apprentices, Pidd (2003) found that 19% regularly consumed alcohol in work-related hours
and 6.7% reported marijuana use during work-related hours.
Whilst the results from the above studies cannot demonstrate the prevalence of workplace
alcohol and other drug use across industry or occupational sectors, they do indicate that
alcohol and other drug use occur in the workplace and provide impetus to determine the
extent of harm arising from impairment. These studies also highlight how different
workplace factors and contexts may contribute to differential AOD harms.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
25
1.5 Relationship between Use and Harm
Finding: The practice of assessing harm in terms of levels of consumption is a flawed
approach. A more effective approach is to examine harm in terms of patterns of
consumption and impairment.
Discussion
Equating alcohol and other drug harm in the workplace with levels of exposure is
problematic in that it is not absolute that exposure to substances will cause harm. The value
of examining harm in terms of patterns of consumption and impairment, rather than simply
consumption or exposure, is highlighted by Newcomb (1994) and supported by Allsop and
Pidd who remark that ‘Identifying harm solely in terms of drug consumption is a flawed
approach’ (Allsop & Pidd 2001, p9). Phillips (2001b, p26) also questions the relevance of
general consumption data in elucidating the debate regarding workplace alcohol and other
drug use and related harm. The chief concern with consumption data is that general
consumption levels may or may not translate to problems at work. A more useful way of
approaching the issue might involve assessing patterns of consumption and the effects of any
consumption on the workplace directly. The rationale supporting this is that some patterns
of consumption are more harmful than others. For example, an individual whose
consumption pattern involves drinking two glasses of wine with dinner probably will not
impact on the workplace, but an individual whose consumption pattern involves a few
beers on their lunch break is more problematic for the workplace.
There is some evidence of employees under-estimating or discounting the effects of alcohol
and other drugs on their work. For example, Allsop (1987, cited in Nicholas, Allsop et al.
1996, p6) states that:
Paradoxically, it is not the relatively small number of very heavy drinkers in
the workplace who are associated with the greatest level of harm. Rather, it is
the much larger group of usually moderate drinkers who may occasionally
drink hazardously who are associated with the greatest amount of harm in the
workplace.
Similarly, Pidd (2004, p279) reports that a sample of South Australian apprentices believed
that work-related alcohol use would not impact on health and safety at work. Likewise, in a
study of Australian police officers, 22% stated that their drinking at work did not impact
their performance at work (Davey, Obst et al. 2001, p145). The National Rural Health
Alliance (1998) also observes that the ‘hangover’ effects of alcohol on performance are
underestimated in Australia. Again, this reinforces the value of examining alcohol and other
drug-related harm in the workplace in terms of patterns of consumption.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 26
2 Responses
The major responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace detailed in
this section are:
? Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Policies
? Health Promotion
? Employee Assistance Programs, Counselling and Other Interventions
? Controls on Drug Use
.
2.1 Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Policies
Finding: Alcohol and other drug policies are an integral part of the organisational response
to workplace alcohol and other drug harm.
Discussion
Workplace AOD policies constitute an important level in the response to AOD issues. The
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) notes that whilst not all workplaces
have a formal AOD policy in place, all workplaces have some form of policy regarding AOD
use even if it is an unwritten, unspoken, ‘common knowledge’ agreement. ADCA (2000a)
suggests that ‘Every Australian workplace should have an AOD policy as part of their
broader occupational health and safety requirement, and as part of their insurance
arrangements.’ The importance of a workplace AOD policy is highlighted by Pidd (2003)
who found that apprentices who were employed in a workplace which had no AOD policy
engaged in more work-related illicit drug use than those employed where a clear policy was
in place. In terms of effective policy, Duffy and Ask (2001) provide an outline of the key
ingredients for a workplace AOD policy. Zinkiewicz and colleagues (2000, p71) suggest that
merely having a policy is not enough – there must be adequate dissemination of the policy
and education regarding it in the workplace.
There is some evidence to suggest a discrepancy exists between the size of a workplace and
its capacity to deal with AOD related issues. Allsop and Phillips, (cited in CCH OHS
Magazine 2004, p21), supported by Richmond and colleagues (1992), state that larger
companies are more likely to have a policy or program in place to address AOD issues, yet a
respondent to the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities advises that
small businesses are more likely to experience problems associated with drug use in the
workplace (Gardner, cited in House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and
Community Affairs 2003, p285). This sentiment is supported by Pidd and Cormack (2000)
who outline the importance of managing AOD issues despite the difficulties that small
businesses encounter due to resource availability.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
27
2.2 Health Promotion
Finding: The effectiveness of workplace health promotion in terms of costs and outcomes is
not certain. However, what is known from other domains indicates that well designed
health promotion activities provide a useful avenue for the prevention of harm.
Discussion
Historically, workplace health promotion has relied on an individualistic focus despite the
shift away from this approach in other health promotion domains (LaMontagne 2004, ;
Health Canada n.d). This individualistic approach ignores the interplay between the
individual and the structural, physical and psychosocial environments within which they
exist. Workplace health promotion should go beyond the individual to recognise the aspects
of the work environment that may impact workers health including AOD use (World Health
Organization Expert Committee on Health Promotion in the Workplace 1993). However, it
is also evident that simplistic notions of these activities as narrowly focused interventions to
promote individual lifestyle and behaviour change impede workplace health promotion.
Allsop and Pidd (2001, pp18-9) offer the most stinging criticism of a simplistic approach:
‘Simplistic, individually focused responses are likely at best, to be ineffective and, at worst,
to exacerbate problems.’
Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp60-5) reviewed the limited research relating to workplace
health promotion and concluded that methodological flaws detracted from some promising
interventions. Richmond and colleagues found that the effectiveness of workplace health
promotion activities, in terms of costs and outcomes, was not clearly articulated. Further,
there are barriers to implementing health promotion activities in the workplace. For
instance, in their research within the New South Wales Police Service and Australia Post,
Richmond and colleagues (1999, ; 2000) concluded that workplace culture can
detrimentally impact on workplace health promotion activities. In particular they
hypothesised that an entrenched aversive culture would require years of activity to build an
effective response (Richmond, Kehoe et al. 1999, p1520).
There is a dearth of evidence relating to workplace health promotion initiatives. Webb
(1999, pp36-7) notes that there are certain aspects, or outcomes, of health promotion that
cannot be measured. However, this does not mean that health promotion is a less valid
response to workplace AOD issues. Loxley and colleagues (2004, p174) concluded that
evidence from other domains supports the use of activities such as brief interventions for
reducing workplace alcohol and other drug use and the associated harms.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 28
2.3 Employee Assistance Programs, Counselling and Other Interventions
Finding: The effectiveness of Employee Assistance Programs [EAPs] in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm in the workplace remains largely unevaluated, whilst the evidence
base for counselling and other interventions in the workplace as a specific setting is poor.
Evidence from other domains suggests that these interventions do provide a potential
avenue for addressing alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace context.
Discussion
Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp69-72) determined that whilst there is a considerable
amount of literature that appears to support the use of EAPs in terms of their ability to
successfully rehabilitate clients, the lack of sound evaluation and scientific investigation in
the literature they reviewed requires that such support needs to be accepted with
reservations. Loxley and colleagues (2004, p172) reported that no conclusive evaluations
exist which establish the effectiveness of EAPs in addressing AOD problems. In defence of
EAPs and the workplaces who utilise them, Nicholas and partners (1996, p27) acknowledge
that EAPs are difficult to evaluate without extensive resources. However, given that EAPs
have been widely accepted and implemented, they do provide a potential avenue for
addressing alcohol and other drug related harm (Calogero, Midford et al. 2001, p104;
Loxley, Toumbourou et al. 2004, p172).
There are many interventions for workplace alcohol and other drug issues not covered
within the scope of health promotion activities or employee assistance programs.
Workplaces may not provide access to an EAP per se but may still offer access to counselling
or other interventions such as peer support programs, educational activities and specific
workplace programs to prevent or reduce alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. In addition, there are community based and private practice services that may
be utilised to assist employees facing alcohol or other drug related problems (Calogero,
Midford et al. 2001, p92). Allsop and colleagues (Allsop, Bush et al. 1997, pp81-5) reviewed
literature pertaining to various workplace interventions and found that in general the quality
of evidence was poor but there were some promising activities related to behavioural
counselling and awareness raising strategies.
Whilst there may be a limited evidence base to support the introduction or continuation of
activities aimed at reducing or preventing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace as a specific site, evidence available from other domains may be cautiously
extrapolated to the workplace setting. For example, Calogero, Midford and Towers (2001,
p104) note that many prevention, counselling and treatment methodologies offer effective
responses to alcohol and other drug problems in the broader community and these
interventions have the potential to be effective in the workplace if adapted for the context.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
29
Further to counselling and other intervention activities, workplace occupational health and
safety initiatives present a framework for addressing and responding to workplace alcohol
and other drug issues. Certainly, workplaces may not formally address alcohol or other drugs
in a policy or intervention sense but may have comprehensive occupational health and
safety guidelines which offer an avenue to respond to alcohol and other drugs.
2.4 Controls on Drug Use
Finding: There is limited evidence to support simple control measures, such as bans on use,
as a means to reduce harm. Alcohol and other drug testing is a contentious strategy and the
available evidence does not support the implementation of testing as a mainstream response
for dealing with workplace drug and alcohol issues due to various limitations.
Discussion
Controls on drug use include efforts to remove access to alcohol or other drugs in the
workplace, legislative approaches to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace and testing
protocols to determine exposure to alcohol and other drugs. Corry (2001, p106) notes that
the aim of controls on alcohol and other drugs in the workplace centre on regulating use
that can impact on the workplace. Workplaces may therefore prohibit the consumption of
substances at various locations or times in order to reduce problems arising out of
consumption. Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp72-7) reviewed the evidence for workplace
controls and found literature relating only to tobacco, indicating that research relating to
controls on alcohol and other drugs is severely limited. This is supported by Corry (2001),
who notes that there is very limited evidence referring to controls on alcohol and other
drugs compared with tobacco. In terms of legislative controls, Occupational Health, Safety
and Welfare legislation sets out the various obligations and responsibilities of employees and
employers relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace and provides a legal
framework for addressing alcohol and other drug issues in the workplace (Phillips 2001a,
pp138-44).
The most contentious effort to control alcohol and other drugs in the workplace is testing for
alcohol and other drugs. The literature regarding workplace drug testing consistently
highlights that it is an inappropriate mechanism for intervening in workplace alcohol and
other drug use. Pidd (n.d) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different forms of drug
testing and concludes that drug testing is unreliable and inaccurate for determining fitness
for duty and impairment. The problems associated with drug testing in the workplace are
further outlined by ADCA (2004, p4) which acknowledges that drug testing is an inadequate
measure of impairment, results in highly punitive responses, is often implemented in
isolation and few organisations evaluate its effectiveness in reducing workplace AOD harm.
This is supported by Crouch and colleagues (1989 cited in Richmond, Heather et al. 1992,
p82) who outline that many millions of dollars are spent on drug testing in the United States
in the absence of cost-benefit analyses. The NHMRC (2001, pp40-1) concludes that the
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 30
available evidence does not support the implementation of testing programs as a means to
counter alcohol-related problems in the workplace.
One of the main criticisms of workplace testing for illicit drugs is that most forms only detect
the presence of drug metabolites – a finding which does not necessarily indicate
impairment, simply consumption (Kapur 1994 cited in Macdonald 1997, p252). Macdonald
(1997) concludes that drug testing is not justifiable based on his review of the
epidemiological, laboratory and scientific evidence. One alternative option to intrusive drug
testing regimes is the use of an impairment measuring system. These systems require the
employee to complete a series of activities to detect impairment, yet suffer the same fate as
many other activities in that they are yet to be comprehensively evaluated (Nolan 2001,
pp72-3).
There are certainly contradictions within the literature around workplace drug testing. There
is some evidence to suggest that implementing a drug testing regime has a deterrent effect
for prospective employees in particular (Allsop et al 1997, Normand et al 1994, Baker 1997,
cited in Loxley, Toumbourou et al. 2004, p174). Yet, others suggest that rather than acting
as a deterrent to workplace drug use, drug testing can simply result in changes to drug taking
behaviour such as employees turning to substances that are less likely to be detected (Crow
& Hartman 1992). In this way, drug testing does not solve workplace drug issues; rather it
shifts the problem to a more furtive level. Further, Allsop and Phillips (1997, p1) note that
the success of pre-employment testing in reducing workplace drug issues is exaggerated and
that testing of existing employees has not been shown to have a positive effect on
productivity, safety or reduce drug-related impairment, in fact Pidd (n.d) even suggests that
drug testing may have a negative impact on productivity.
The different variations of drug testing clearly occupy a place in the overall response to
workplace AOD harm. Respondents to the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian
Communities noted that drug testing may be a requirement in certain scenarios where
issues of public safety are concerned (Gardner and ADCA , cited in House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs 2003, p288), and
Loxley and colleagues (2004, p174) conclude that in vocations that have safety critical
components, such as airline pilots, testing for alcohol and other drugs is more likely to be
accepted. Whilst there is by no means consensus regarding workplace drug testing, the
predominant conclusion in the literature is that drug testing is not justifiable as a routine
measure for either preventing or reducing drug related harm in the workplace.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
31
3 Work Environment
The work environment and culture of the workplace can have a profound impact on
employees. Employees do not exist in isolation – the structural, physical and psychosocial
aspects of the environment within which they exist affect them. Workplace culture can
influence the acceptability of alcohol and other drug use. In the police force, for example, it
is suggested that a culture of drinking within the force, and availability of alcohol, impact on
police officers drinking patterns (Hagen, Egan et al. 1992, ; Davey, Obst et al. 2000a,
2000b, 2001). The notion of workplace culture and availability impacting on work-related
alcohol and other drug use is supported by Lillibridge, Cox and Cross (2002, p226) in their
research with nurses. They found that the availability and ease of access to drugs in the
workplace were key drivers in nurses’ substance use. Pidd (2003) also found that certain
employment arrangements, such as employment status (full-time, part-time or unemployed
vocational students), workplace size and the presence of policies addressing alcohol and
other drugs, can impact on work-related alcohol and other drug use. The role of work
environment is further highlighted by the fact that, in 39% of work-related fatalities where
alcohol was a contributing factor, the alcohol was consumed either at work or at a work-
sponsored event (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1998, p18).
The NHMRC has found that risk factors for alcohol related work injuries include complex
relationships between the individual and environment (1997, p32; 2001, p31). In terms of
the aspects of the work environment which drive people to use alcohol or other drugs,
Midford (2001, p53) highlights the work of Hagen, Egan and Eltringham (1992) who
determined that pressure, stress, lack of control over work, equipment quality,
competitiveness and frequency of workplace arguments were associated with higher alcohol
consumption in certain occupations. In addition, Allsop and Pidd (2001, pp12-9) report that
a range of factors such as, alienation, stress, work culture and structural features of the
workplace, may impact on work-related AOD use.
4 Data Collections
The issues outlined in this report highlight that there are serious reservations regarding the
breadth and quality of data collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
For instance, it is evident that blood alcohol concentration [BAC] is not a routine check in
work-related fatalities – even those that are work-related road fatalities. Mitchell, Driscoll
and Healey (2004) report that BAC was only available for 81.4% of Australian work-related
road fatalities whilst other drug levels were available in only 46.2% of work-related road
fatalities. In South Australian work-related fatalities in the period 1989-1992, BAC was
available in only 80.8% of cases and information on other drug levels was only available for
27.2% of fatalities (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1999, pp30-1).
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 32
However, it must be acknowledged that in certain circumstances (such as delayed sample
collection after death), the collection of accurate data regarding an individual’s alcohol or
other drug levels may be hampered by technical concerns. It remains though that the lack of
comprehensive, standardised data collection techniques allows for and supports an
imprecise representation of alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. The
paucity of reliable and valid data extends to nearly all facets of the problem of alcohol and
other drugs in the workplace; injury and prevalence data, the impact of policies and
interventions and more. This has serious implications for all levels of the response to this
harm – if the true scope of the problem cannot be comprehended how can effective
responses be developed?
CONCLUSION
This report has highlighted that the consistent theme with regard to workplace interventions
is that further, well designed research needs to be undertaken to determine the
effectiveness of these strategies for reducing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. In addition, an insufficient evidence base from which to move forward hampers
action. Inadequate data collections and the absence of baseline data will inevitably lead to
less than desirable outcomes. Further impeding action in this area is a clear lack of action
and consensus regarding the major issues and how best to address these. As outlined by
ADCA (2000a), much of the evidence in Australia is anecdotal in nature and there are many
‘unknowns’. What is clear is that work-related alcohol and other drug use and related harms
are under-researched and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to address the issues.
What must be remembered is that work-related alcohol and other drug use is not a problem
isolated to the individual – it is a whole of workplace problem due to the breadth of harms
and the potential for significant impacts. As such, alcohol and other drug-related harms in
the workplace require more than a response levelled at the individual; it requires a holistic,
comprehensive approach that is supported by all concerned.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
33
References
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) Drug Policy 2000: A New Agenda for
Harm Reduction (Accessed: 07/03/2005) Available: www.adca.org.au/DP2000.htm
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000b) Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of
Australia Submission to Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities. ACT
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2004) Review of the Safety Benefits of
Introducing Drug and Alcohol Testing for Safety-Sensitive Personnel in the Aviation
Industry. Submission to The Department of Transport and Regional Services and the
Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
Allsop, S., Bush, R., Phillips, M., Midford, R., Vincent, N., Ask, A., Duffy, J., Bailey, M.,
Fowler, G., Sirenko, A. (1997) Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Australian Workplace: A
Critical Literature Review. National Centre for Education and Training. South Australia
Allsop, S., Phillips, M. (1997). An Overview of Drug Testing in the Workplace - Key Note
Address. R. Midford and P. Heale Under the Influence? Issues and Practicalities of
Alcohol and Other Drug testing in the Workplace, Western Australia, National Centre
for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse.
Allsop, S., Pidd, K. (2001) The Nature of Drug-Related Harm in the Workplace in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) 2004 National Drug Strategy Household
Survey: First Results. Drug Statistics Series No. 13, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. Canberra
Calogero, C., Midford, R., Towers, T. (2001) Responding to Drug-Related harm in the
Workplace: The Role of Prevention, Counselling, and Assistance Programs in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
CCH OHS Magazine (2004) Taking a Sober View. CCH OHS Magazine, December/January
2004: 20-3.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2001). Economic Costs of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the
Workplace. A. M. Roche and J. McDonald Systems, Settings, People: Workforce
Development Challenges in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Field, Adelaide, National
Centre for Education and Training on Addiction.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2002) Counting the Cost: Estimates of the Social Costs of Drug
Abuse in Australia in 1998-9. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 34
Corry, A. (2001) Controls on Drug Use in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and
Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 105-17.
Crow, S. M., Hartman, S. J. (1992) "Drugs in the Workplace: Overstating the Problems and
the Cures." The Journal of Drug Issues, 22(4): 923-37.
Curry, K., Theodorou, S. (2002) The Poly-Drug User in Management of Alcohol and Drug
Problems. G. Hulse, J. White and G. Cape. Melbourne, Oxford University Press: 258-
72.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2000a) "The Use of AUDIT as a Screening Tool for
Alcohol Use in the Police Work-Place." Drug and Alcohol Review, 19(1): 49-54.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2000b) "Work demographics and officers'
perceptions of the work environment which add to the prediction of at risk alcohol
consumption within an Australian police sample." Policing: An International Journal of
police Strategies and Management, 23(1): 69-81.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2001) "It Goes with the Job: Officers' insights into
the impact of stress and culture on alcohol consumption within the policing
occupation." Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8(2): 141-9.
Duffy, J., Ask, A. (2001) Ten Ingredients for Developing and Implementing a Drug and
Alcohol Policy in Your Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and
Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 74-84.
English, D., Holman, C. D. J., Milne, E., Winter, M., Hulse, G., Codde, J., Bower, C., Corti,
B., deKlerk, N., Knuiman, M., Kurinczuk, J., Lewin, G., Ryan, T. (1995) The
Quantification of Drug Caused Morbidity and Mortality in Australia 1995.
Commonwealth Department of Human Services. Canberra
Greenberg, M., Hamilton, R., Toscano, G. (1999) "Analysis of Toxicology Reports from the
1993-94 Census of fatal Occupational Injuries." Compensation and Working
Conditions, Fall 1999: 26-8.
Hagen, R., Egan, D., Eltringham, A. (1992) Work, Drugs and Alcohol. Victorian
Occupational Health and Safety Commission Melbourne
Health Canada (n.d) Literature Review: Evaluations of Workplace Health Promotion
Programs. Health Canada. Ottawa
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs (2003)
Road to Recovery: Report on the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian
Communities. Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
35
LaMontagne, A. D. (2004) Integrating Health Promotion and Health Protection in the
Workplace in Hands-on Health Promotion. R. Moodie and A. Hulme. Melbourne, IP
Communications: 285-98.
Lillibridge, J., Cox, M., Cross, W. (2002) "Uncovering the Secret: Giving voice to the
Experiences of Nurses who Misuse Substances." Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39(3):
219-29.
Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J. W., Stockwell, T., Haines, B., Scott, K., Godfrey, C., Waters, E.,
Patton, G., Fordham, R., Gray, D., Marshall, J., Ryder, D., Saggers, S., Sanci, L.,
Williams, J., Carruthers, S., Chikritzhs, T., Lenton, S., Midford, R., Snow, P., Spooner,
C. (2004) The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A review of the
evidence. National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health.
Commonwealth of Australia
Mabbott, N. A., Hartley, L. R. (1999) "Patterns of Stimulant Drug Use on Western Australian
Heavy Transport Routes." Transportation Research Part F, 2: 115-30.
Macdonald, S. (1997) "Work-Place Alcohol and Other Drug Testing: A Review of the
Scientific Evidence." Drug and Alcohol Review, 16(251-9).
Midford, R. (2001) The Nature and Extent of Drug-Related Harm in the Community and the
Implications for the Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other
Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 42-55.
Mitchell, R., Driscoll, T., Healey, S. (2004) "Work-related road fatalities in Australia."
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36: 851-60.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1997) Workplace Injury and Alcohol - Draft
Report. Canberra
National Health and Medical Research Council (2001) Workplace Injuries and Alcohol:
Draft Report of the NHMRC Workplace Injury and Alcohol Working Party. National
Health and Medical Research Council.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1998) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1999) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in South Australia, 1989-1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
National Rural Health Alliance (1998) Drugs and Alcohol in Rural Australia. National Rural
Health Alliance
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 36
Newcomb, M. D. (1994) "Prevalence of Alcohol and Other Drug Use On the Job: Cause for
Concern or Irrational Hysteria?" The Journal of Drug Issues, 24(3): 403-16.
Nicholas, R., Allsop, S., Calogero, C., Phillips, M., Ormonde, N. (1996) Alcohol and Other
Drugs in the Workplace: Issues, Trends and Practices. The Chamber of Mines and
Energy Western Australia in collaboration with the WA Alcohol and Drug Authority.
Nolan, J. (2001) Employee Drug Testing: Some Recent Legal Developments in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications: 60-73.
Phillips, M. (2001a) Designing and Implementing Effective Occupational Health and Safety
Initiatives in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications: 138-44.
Phillips, M. (2001b) The Prevalence of Drug-Use and Risk of Drug-Related Harm in the
Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications.
Pidd, K. (2003) The Work-Related Drug Use of Adolescent Apprentices: Testing a Revised
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Flinders University of South Australia, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation.
Pidd, K. (2004) "The Impact of Workplace Support and Identity on Training Transfer: A Case
Study of Drug and Alcohol Safety Training in Australia." International Journal of Training
and Development, 8(4): 274-88.
Pidd, K. (n.d) Drugs and Alcohol "Abuse" and Testing of Workers for the Presence of Drugs
and Alcohol. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction Bedford Park
Pidd, K., Cormack, S. (2000) "Developing an Effective Response to Alcohol and Other Drug
Related Harm in the Workplace." Safety in Australia, 23(2): 23-7.
Richmond, R., Heather, N., Holt, P., Hu, W. (1992) Workplace Policies and Programs for
Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs in Australia. National Campaign Against Drug Abuse
Monograph Series, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra
Richmond, R. L., Kehoe, L., Hailstone, S., Wodak, A., Uebel-Yan, M. (1999) "Quantitative
and Qualitative Evaluations of Brief Interventions to Change Excessive Drinking,
Smoking and Stress in the Police Force." Addiction, 94(10): 1509-21.
Richmond, R. L., Kehoe, L., Heather, N., Wodak, A. (2000) "Evaluation of a Workplace Brief
Intervention for Excessive Alcohol Consumption: The Workscreen Project." Preventive
Medicine, 30: 51-63.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
37
Webb, D. (1999) Current Approaches to Gathering Evidence in Evidence-Based Health
Promotion. E. R. Perkins, I. Simnett and L. Wright. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons: 34-
46.
Williamson, A., Sadural, S., Feyer, A.-M., Friswell, R. (2001) Driver Fatigue: A Survey of
Long Distance Heavy Vehicle Drivers in Australia. National Road Transport Commission
Victoria
World Health Organization Expert Committee on Health Promotion in the Workplace
(1993) Health Promotion in the Workplace: Alcohol and Drug Abuse. WHO Technical
Report Series, World Health Organization Geneva
Zinkiewicz, L., Davey, J., Obst, P., Sheehan, M. (2000) "Employee Support for Alcohol
Reduction Intervention Strategies in an Australian Railway." Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 7(1): 61-73.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 38
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
39
Appendix 2
Phase Two Summar y
Repor t
Survey Results
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 40
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alcohol and other drug use present a significant burden to the community and as such signal
a major public health concern. The workplace brings together people in society and reflects
general health problems. Alcohol and other drugs cost individuals, industry and society
through social and economic burden.
SafeWork SA and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia are working in partnership to
address the impact of alcohol and other drugs in workplaces through a joint research
project. The project is aimed at assembling the existing evidence for the nature and extent
of alcohol and other drug related harm in South Australian workplaces and recommended
practice in preventing and responding to that harm.
The following report details the results of research undertaken for phase two of The Impact
of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project. This research phase is designed to
identify the strategies South Australian workplaces use to prevent and respond to potential
and actual alcohol and other drug related harm.
This exploratory research involved semi-qualitative telephone interviews with 110 South
Australian workplaces to develop a broader understanding of the following key areas:
? Issues affecting workplaces in relation to alcohol and other drug related harm;
? Current strategies in place to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm in
South Australian workplaces;
? The strategies workplaces are considering implementing to further respond to
alcohol and other drug related harm;
? The strategies workplaces think have had the most impact in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm;
? Areas where workplaces want greater support.
Results indicate that workplaces are generally concerned about the issue of alcohol and
other drug related harm. Workplaces in this research are most concerned about the
potential impact that alcohol and other drugs may have on safety, with over seventy per
cent of workplaces indicating concerns related to safety.
Workplaces utilise policy and a range of strategies to respond to alcohol and other drug
related harm. Key findings from this research indicate that the majority of workplaces (96%)
had a policy or at least one specific strategy in place to address alcohol and other drug
related harm.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
41
Workplaces generally used policies as a first line response to alcohol and other drug related
harm with almost nine out of ten participating workplaces having a policy in place.
Provision of an Employee Assistance Program or access to counselling services was the most
common specific strategy utilised by workplaces. Alcohol and other drug testing programs,
which were utilised by almost half of participating workplaces, followed this.
In addition to formal strategies such as testing and counselling services, workplaces
employed a range of less formal, yet equally important, strategies in their response to
alcohol and other drug related harm. Nearly a third of workplaces nominated a positive
workplace culture as a protective factor against alcohol and other drug related harm.
However, workplaces believed that testing and education had the most impact in actually
reducing this harm.
Workplaces were particularly able to provide avenues where greater support could be
provided. The key areas that workplaces want assistance with is clarification of their rights
and responsibilities in relation to managing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. Workplaces believed this could be achieved through advice, assistance,
information and awareness.
Despite being concerned about alcohol and other drug related harm and generally wanting
further assistance to respond, most workplaces were not considering implementing any
additional strategies to enhance their existing responses. One of the challenges for future
work in this area is to determine how best to harness workplaces concern about this issue
and translate this concern into further action.
Responses from workplaces involved in this research provide many avenues from which to
further address the issue of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. This
research also highlights the need for greater support to assist workplaces to enhance their
current responses to alcohol and other drug related harm.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 42
INTRODUCTION
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project is a joint initiative of
SafeWork SA and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia. The project seeks to assemble
the existing evidence for the nature and extent of alcohol and other drug related harm in
workplaces and recommended practice in preventing and responding to that harm. The
project involves three linked phases of research:
? Phase One: Literature Review
? Phase Two: Targeted telephone survey
? Phase Three: Stakeholder Workshop
The following report presents the results of phase two of this research project. Phase two
comprised a targeted telephone survey of South Australian workplaces to identify the
strategies in place to prevent and respond to potential and actual alcohol and other drug
related harm in the workplace. This report presents an overview of the results of the survey
together with analysis and discussion of these results.
1 Methodology
1.1 Method
The research design was exploratory in nature and involved a descriptive, cross-sectional
method. Data collection comprised a semi-qualitative telephone interview, a copy of which
is attached (Appendix 2D). Responses were recorded in note form by the interviewer.
Interviews were conducted with workplaces in three target industries (construction,
transport and manufacturing) and were selected via a non-probability sampling approach,
quota sampling, which is outlined further in section 1.2. A pilot of the survey was conducted
in July 2005 from which adjustments were made to the question set. The survey
commenced in August 2005 and all interviews were completed by the end of October
2005.
Due to the nature of the qualitative methodology utilised, the results of this research are not
applicable to all workplaces and thus are not generalisable. The results do provide a useful
snapshot of the experience of a small number of South Australian workplaces and can
inform further research which may be extrapolated to cover a greater proportion of South
Australian workplaces.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
43
In order to ensure a range of perspectives were gained through this research, Health and
Safety Representatives (HSRs) in the target industries involved in the telephone survey were
contacted to ascertain their views on the impact of alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace. Over 500 HSRs were contacted in September 2005 via email through the HSR
register held by Workcover Corporation. A reminder was sent to all contacts two weeks after
the initial request. HSRs were asked to respond to a brief set of questions which had been
modified from the original set used with workplaces. Thirteen responses were received by
mid-October. See Appendix 2B for results.
1.2 Sampling
The survey sample comprised workplaces in the construction, transport and manufacturing
industries. The decision to survey a sample of target industries rather than a sample of all
workplaces was based on the need to refine the scope of the project and direct the research
to areas of need.
In selecting the target industries consideration was given to a number of issues. There is no
clear basis in the available evidence for identifying which industries experience the highest
levels of alcohol and other drug related harm. As a result, a decision was taken to examine
those industries with the highest levels of occupational related harm, irrespective of cause.
In addition, it was considered pertinent to align the target industries with state and national
priority areas. The construction, transport and manufacturing industries have been
consistently identified as high risk in terms of general health and safety concerns and appear
prominently in Australian worker’s compensation statistics (see www.workcover.com).
The sampling approach involved identifying ‘high-risk’ and ‘low-risk’ workplaces within
each industry cluster. This was determined through assessing overall workers compensation
statistics for the companies. High risk workplaces were identified as those who had higher
than industry average workers compensation claims in terms of numbers and costs, whilst
low risk workplaces were lower than the industry average. The clusters included a cross-
section of small, medium and large workplaces (based on Australian Bureau of Statistics
definitions). The following matrix details the cells within the sample:
Construction Manufacturing Transport
High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk
Small Small Small
Medium Medium Medium
Large Large Large
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 44
A target of 90 participating workplaces was set based on the need for five workplaces in
each of the 18 cells. A response rate of approximately 40% was anticipated requiring an
initial database of 234 workplaces, which was supplied by Workcover Corporation. Sixty-
nine workplaces were removed from this database for a number of reasons (including
current investigations or prosecutions, insufficient contact details, duplicate listings, sole
traders and no longer operating) leaving 165 workplaces eligible for participation.
Workplaces were contacted through a three-stage mailout commencing in August 2005
1.3 Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using the computer software Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS version 13.0). Data were analysed through a series of crosstabulations and
using non-parametric statistical tests where appropriate. In addition to the use of the
Statistical package for Social Sciences, qualitative data were analysed through input into
word processing software to allow for identification of themes and repetition.
The question set and pattern of responses delineate a clear set of five domains of results.
These can be simply expressed as follows and provide the focus for the presentation of
results in this report:
? Identification of issues
? Current strategies
? Intention to respond further
? Strategies that have had greatest impact
? Areas for support
2 Description of the sample
The pool of potential participants was 165, of which 33.3% (n=55) either refused
participation directly or were not pursued any further after several call-backs. One hundred
and ten workplaces participated in the survey, representing 66.7% of the potential pool.
Table 1 indicates the distribution of completed interviews across the 18 cells; figures in
brackets indicate the percentage of workplaces as a proportion of the potential participating
workplaces in each category. The initial target was five interviews per cell; some cells were
oversubscribed due to higher than expected participation rates.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
45
Table 1: Distribution of workplaces
Construction Manufacturing Transport
High
Risk
Low
Risk
High
Risk
Low
Risk
High
Risk
Low
Risk
TOTAL
Small 5 6 4 6 1 5 27
Medium 6 6 9 6 11 11 49
Large 7 4 8 9 4 2 34
TOTAL
(As % of potential
category participants)
18
(60%)
16
(67%)
21
(68%)
21
(75%)
16
(60%)
18
(72%)
110
(66.7%)
Targets for participation across all risk and size categories were exceeded, except for the
category of small businesses which fell three short of the target 30 workplaces
1
.
It is important to consider the characteristics of workplaces that did not participate. Overall,
38.6% of high risk workplaces and 27.3% of low risk workplaces that were eligible to
participate refused participation or were not pursued after several callbacks. Fifty percent of
eligible small workplaces refused participation or were not pursued, compared with 35.5%
of medium workplaces and 2.9% of large workplaces.
The initial sample provided by Workcover Corporation estimated the size of companies
based on worker’s compensation levy amounts. As part of the data collection process,
workplaces were asked how many people their organisation employed. Workplaces were
then re-categorised based on this data and all results in this report refer to the actual
company size. It was found that workplaces often varied from the estimated size provided in
the original database with 21 being a different size to that originally indicated. This
particularly impacted the small cells. The variations in size encountered are listed in table 2:
Table 2: Variations in company size
Expected Size Actual Size Number of occurrences
Small Medium 10
Small Large 1
Medium Small 3
Medium Large 4
Large Medium 3
1
Further information regarding sample characteristics, including non-participators, can be found in Appendix 2A.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 46
2.1 Location
Twenty workplaces, representing 18.2% of the total number of participating workplaces,
were identified as being located in a regional area.
2.2 Size
Workplaces were asked to report the number of employees to determine actual size. Based
on these figures, small businesses (those employing less than 20 people) accounted for
24.5% (n=27) of the sample, whilst 44.5% (n=49) were identified as medium businesses
(employing 20-199 people) and 30.9% (n=34) were identified as large businesses
(employing 200 or more people). The median number of employees across all participating
workplaces was 62.5.
2.3 Risk
Fifty per cent of workplaces (n=55) were identified as high-risk’ workplaces and 50%
(n=55) were identified as being ‘low-risk’ workplaces.
2.4 Gender
Workplaces were asked what percentages of employees were male and female. The mean
percentage of males in the workplaces was 82.8%; the mean percentage of females in the
workplace was 17.2%. Just over three quarters (75.5%, n=83) of workplaces indicated that
males comprised 75% or more of their workforce, 5.5% (n=6) workplaces indicated that the
percentage of male employees in their workplace was 50% or less.
2.5 Age
Workplaces were asked what percentages of employees were in the following size
categories: 15-24, 25-44, 45-54, and over 55. The mean percentage of employees aged 15-
24 years was 12.9%, the mean percentage of employees aged 25-44 years was 49.2% and
the mean percentage of employees aged 45-54 was 26.1%. The mean percentage of
employees aged 55 or over was 11%. There was a significant correlation between the size of
an organisation and the age profile of its workforce in that the larger the organisation the
higher percentage of employees aged 15-24 years (Kruskal Wallis df=2, p=.013, n=106).
2.6 Employment Status
Workplaces were asked about the employment status of their employees. The mean
percentage of casual employees was 19.6%, the mean percentage of part-time employees
was 3.4%, the mean percentage of full-time employees was 70.4% and the mean
percentage of labour hire employees was 6.6%. A strong negative correlation was found
between the percentage of casual employees and size of organisation – the larger the
organisation the lower the percentage of casual employees (Spearman’s Rho r= -.246,
n=105, p
Phase one of the research comprised of a summary of key literature pertaining to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. The aim of phase one was principally to highlight the major research undertaken and key issues of importance so as to inform the latter research phases of the project.
The Impact of
Al cohol & Other
Dr ugs in the
Wor kpl ace
Final Project Report 2006
A collaborative project between SafeWork SA (Department of Administrative and
Information Services) and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide
Health Service)
Lindsay Breugem
Lyn Barnett
Simone Cormack
Valerie O’Keeffe
Marina Bowshall
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 ii
Project Management
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project is a collaborative
partnership between SafeWork SA (Department for Administrative and Information Services)
and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide Health Service). The
project has been jointly coordinated by these lead agencies, with the project management
team consisting of the following members:
Lyn Barnett
Manager, Retail and Transport Team
SafeWork SA
Simone Cormack
Director, Population Health Programs Division & Deputy Executive Director
Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia
Valerie O’Keeffe
Chief Adviser, Human Factors
SafeWork SA
Marina Bowshall
Principal Consultant, Policy & Communication
Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia)
Kay Loechel
Acting Chief Adviser, Human Factors
SafeWork SA
The research for this project has been undertaken by Lindsay Breugem, Senior Research
Officer, under the direction of the project management team. The project management
team gratefully acknowledges the work of Lindsay who conducted the literature review,
designed and delivered the survey and coordinated the stakeholder workshop. It is the
quality of Lindsay’s work that has resulted in the success of the project and this high quality
report.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
iii
Acknowledgments
The project team wishes to sincerely thank all those involved in this research project. In
particular, sincere appreciation is extended to Workcover Corporation for providing initial
funding for the research officer to carry out this project. In addition, thanks are extended to
members of the project reference group as follows:
Steve Allsop (Director, National Drug Research Institute)
Kim Daniel (SA Unions Representative)
Carolyn David (Consultant, Traineeship and Apprenticeship Services)
Ryan Elson (Adviser, Workplace Relations, Business SA)
David Frith (Director, Workplace Policy and Business Services, Business SA)
Janet Hall (Team Leader, Health, Safety, Environment and Injury Management, Business SA)
James Harrison (Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies)
Kay Loechel (Prevention and Injury Management Consultant, Workcover Corporation)
Ken Pidd (Senior Research Officer, National Centre for Education & Training on Addiction)
Sophie Pointer (Assistant Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies)
Beryl Rowan (Vice President, Recruitment and Consulting Services Association SA)
Wendy Wells (Team Leader, Traineeship and Apprenticeship Services)
The expert guidance and continuous feedback provided by members of the reference group
has been a great strength of this project and the time and contribution of all members has
been greatly appreciated.
Thanks are also extended to the 110 South Australian workplaces that participated in the
telephone survey conducted for this research, and the seven workplaces that participated in
the pilot of this survey. The support and contribution offered by these workplaces helped to
ensure positive outcomes for this research and has provided an insight into issues facing
South Australian workplaces when addressing alcohol and other drug related harm. Their
participation is greatly valued by all involved.
Sincere appreciation is offered to those who attended the stakeholder workshop in May
2006. The success of this phase of the research is directly linked to the motivation and
enthusiasm displayed by those who contributed their expertise to the discussion on the day.
There have been a number of people from various agencies who have provided advice and
guidance as required during the course of this project. The project team wishes to thank
staff at SafeWork SA, Workcover Corporation, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia
and other agencies that have been involved with this project. The project team is grateful for
the goodwill extended by all.
Lastly, the collaborative partnership between the two lead agencies, SafeWork SA and Drug
and Alcohol Services South Australia, must be acknowledged as the key strength in ensuring
the success of this project.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 iv
Contents
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................1
CONTEXT...........................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................................................................................2
Phase One...................................................................................................................2
Phase Two...................................................................................................................5
Phase Three.................................................................................................................7
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION...................................9
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................16
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 1
Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary............................................................19
APPENDIX 2
Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results....................................................................39
APPENDIX 3
Phase Three Summary Report: Stakeholder Workshop.....................................................83
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
1
BACKGROUND
The South Australian Government held a Drugs Summit in 2002 which resulted in the
announcement of 35 initiatives to address issues related to alcohol and other drugs in the
South Australian community. The workplace setting was identified as a key area for
investigation and in 2003 it was recommended that:
A project be undertaken to address the current knowledge gap in key industries in
relation to the effects of drugs and alcohol in the workplace and recommend
options for improved prevention and implementation strategies. Initially a scoping
of the project will be undertaken to determine the parameters of a major research
project which will: establish baseline data to consider the extent to which drugs
and alcohol impact on safety, health and welfare in workplaces in South Australia;
conduct an exhaustive literature review; conduct extensive industry consultation;
identify the procedures and tools in place in SA that address drugs and alcohol in
the workplace and the effectiveness of these prevention strategies. (South
Australian Government 2003).
The resultant project, The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace, has been
jointly coordinated by SafeWork SA (Department of Administrative and Information
Services) and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (Southern Adelaide Health Service).
Project management has consisted of a project team from both agencies and strategic
guidance has been provided through a high level reference group with members from the
business, union and academic sectors.
The aim of this project was to assemble the existing evidence for the nature and extent of
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces and recommended practice in
preventing and responding to that harm. The project consisted of three linked phases of
research; a literature summary, telephone survey with South Australian workplaces, and a
workshop with key stakeholders. Key outputs for the project include three research reports
(see appendices 1-3) detailing findings from research activities undertaken and a series of
recommendations outlining priorities for future action.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 2
CONTEXT
The rationale for addressing alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is based on
the recognition that most people are in employment and many people consume drugs,
particularly alcohol. Therefore, the workplace is likely to reflect the alcohol and other drug
issues experienced in the general community. Alcohol and other drugs burden individuals,
industry and society in terms of health, social and economic costs and as such signal a major
public health problem.
The workplace presents particular challenges when attempting to address alcohol and other
drug related issues, in part due to the potential for serious harm arising from accidents,
injuries and productivity implications. Alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace
may manifest in terms of physical harm, such as fatalities and injuries, and productivity
related implications, such as a reduction in the available workforce or poor performance. In
addition, alcohol and other drugs adversely impact workplace culture and morale and the
health and welfare of the workforce. This project specifically sought to investigate the
impact of alcohol and illicit drug use and related harm on the workplace.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Phase One
Phase one of the research comprised of a summary of key literature pertaining to alcohol
and other drug related harm in the workplace (full report available – Appendix 1). The aim
of phase one was principally to highlight the major research undertaken and key issues of
importance so as to inform the latter research phases of the project. The literature review
has been divided into two broad sections exploring harms resulting from alcohol and other
drugs in the workplace, and responses to these harms.
A key finding from the literature review is that there is a paucity of quality evidence
demonstrating the impact of alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. In
addition, there are serious reservations regarding the breadth and quality of existing data
collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The lack of comprehensive
research and data collections supports an imprecise representation of alcohol and other
drug related harm in the workplace and impedes responses (both within workplaces and at
a service level) to the issue. Despite the lack of comprehensive research and data
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
3
collections, the available evidence indicates that alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace is a serious issue.
Alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces can manifest in terms of physical harms
(e.g. fatalities and injuries) and productivity related harms (e.g. poor performance,
workforce reduction). In terms of physical harms, alcohol has been found to be a
contributing factor in an estimated 4% of work-related fatalities (National Occupational
Health & Safety Commission 1998) and between 3-11% of workplace injuries (National
health & Medical Research Council 1997). Other drugs are estimated to contribute to 2% of
work-related fatalities [no reliable data exists examining the relationship between other
drugs and workplace injuries]. In total, it is estimated that alcohol and other drugs are
contributing factors in at least 5% of work-related fatalities. (National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission 1998).
In 1998-99 alcohol and other drug use resulted in productivity related costs exceeding $2.9
billion in Australia (Collins & Lapsley 2002). These costs were borne through a reduction in
the available workforce (due to illness or premature death) and absenteeism. In addition to
these costs, in 1992-93 it was found that drug-related workplace accidents resulted in costs
of over $1.5 billion, of which the cost to employers was estimated to be 650 million dollars
(Phillips 2001). Alcohol and other drugs can affect workplace productivity in a number of
ways including; increased absenteeism, lateness, staff turnover, accidents, increased workers
compensation premiums and reduced performance (Phillips 2001).
The prevalence of alcohol and other drug use or impairment at work is difficult to gauge
due to the nature of these activities. The 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey
reports that approximately 4.4% of all Australians went to work affected by alcohol, whilst
2% of Australians went to work affected by illicit drugs. In addition, over 6% of participants
reported that the workplace was their usual place of consumption of alcohol (Australian
Institute of Health & Welfare 2005).
One of the most important factors to explore when examining the issue of alcohol and other
drug related harm in workplaces is the relationship between consumption and impairment.
It does not necessarily follow that a person is impaired simply because they have consumed
alcohol or other drugs. A range of factors must be taken into consideration, including
patterns of consumption and the relative effects of consumption on the workplace.
There is a range of responses which workplaces can implement to address potential and
actual alcohol and other drug related harm. The main responses include; workplace alcohol
and other drug policies, employee assistance programs and controls on use (including drug
testing programs).
When examining potential responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace, it is important to consider the legislative obligations employers and employees
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 4
are required to comply with in respect to alcohol and other drugs. Under the South
Australian Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act (1986), employers have a duty to
ensure a safe working environment and safe systems of work are provided for staff. Section
21 of the Act also specifically requires that employees ensure they are not, by the
consumption of alcohol or a drug, in such a state as to endanger their own safety at work or
the safety of any other person at work.
Workplace alcohol and other drug policies are largely advocated as a first level response to
problems in the workplace. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000)
recommends that “Every Australian workplace should have an AOD [alcohol and other
drug] policy as part of their broader occupational health and safety requirement, ad as part
of their insurance arrangements.” It is important that policies are developed consultatively
and have an education and dissemination plan embedded within the policy to ensure staff
awareness.
Despite a lack of sound evidence evaluating the effectiveness of employee assistance
programs in addressing alcohol and other drug problems in the workplace these programs
have been widely accepted and implemented by workplaces and do provide one avenue
where employees and employers can obtain assistance (Calogero, Midford et al 2001;
Loxley, Tombourou et al 2004).
The most contentious effort to address alcohol and other drugs in the workplace is drug
testing. There is a range of criticisms directed at testing programs. Principally, concerns have
been raised regarding significant limitations in these programs, as they do not have the
ability to accurately determine the amount of drug consumed, the time of consumption or
the level of impairment experienced as a result of consumption. Whilst there is no
consensus in the literature regarding the efficacy or appropriateness of workplace testing
programs, the predominant conclusion is that testing is not justifiable as a routine measure
for either preventing or reducing drug related harm in the workplace. (Pidd n.d). Workplace
testing programs should not be implemented as a stand alone response but, if
considered, should be incorporated as part of a comprehensive approach to workplace
alcohol and other drug related harm.
The literature also highlighted the importance of recognising the role of the work
environment as a precipitating factor in employee alcohol or other drug use. The structural,
physical and psychosocial aspects of the work environment can have a profound impact on
employees and workplace culture can influence the acceptability of work-related alcohol or
other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
5
The findings from the literature review highlight that a range of issues associated with
alcohol and other drugs in the workplace are under-researched. Specifically, further
research is required to determine the effectiveness of specific responses in reducing harm in
the workplace. In addition, the insufficient evidence base examining the extent of alcohol
and other drug related harm experienced by workplaces significantly hampers action in this
area. Without a clear understanding of the scope of the problems, the opportunity to
implement effective responses is diminished.
Phase Two
Phase two involved a targeted telephone survey with South Australian workplaces to identify
the strategies in place to prevent and respond to potential and actual alcohol and other drug
related harm in the workplace. The research design was exploratory and involved a
descriptive, cross-sectional method. The survey was conducted via non-probability sampling
across three industries, namely Construction, Transport and Manufacturing, with a cross-
section of small, medium and large participating workplaces. Participating workplaces were
also classified as ‘high’ or ‘low’ risk according to their worker’s compensation claims history.
A database of contacts was provided by Workcover Corporation and workplaces were
contacted between the months August – October 2005 requesting their participation.
Response to the survey was generally positive and a higher than anticipated response rate
was received for this research phase (anticipated response rate: 40%, actual response rate:
67%).
The research involved semi-qualitative telephone interviews with 110 South Australian
workplaces to develop a broader understanding of the following key areas:
? Issues affecting workplaces in relation to alcohol and other drug related harm;
? Current strategies in place to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm in
South Australian workplaces;
? The strategies workplaces are considering implementing to further respond to
alcohol and other drug related harm;
? The strategies workplaces think have had the most impact in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm;
? Areas where workplaces want greater support.
The results of the survey indicate that workplaces are generally concerned about the issue of
alcohol and other drug related harm. Workplaces indicated significant concern about the
potential impact that alcohol and other drugs may have on safety, with over seventy per
cent of workplaces indicating concerns related to safety. In addition, productivity
implications (including the effects of absenteeism) were highlighted by many workplaces as
an issue arising out of alcohol and other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 6
The most common response implemented by workplaces to address alcohol and other drug
related harm were alcohol and other drug policies, with almost nine out of ten participating
workplaces having a policy in place. Almost all workplaces with a policy used at least one
mechanism for creating awareness of the policy, with the most common method being
through the induction process. Workplaces with written policies generally had them in place
for at least 3 years. Most workplaces with written policies indicated that they had found the
policy to be a useful strategy to address alcohol and other drug related harm.
In addition to policies, workplaces used a range of specific strategies to respond to alcohol
and other drug related harm. Key findings from this research indicate that the majority of
workplaces (96%) had at least one specific strategy in place to address alcohol and other
drug related harm.
The most common strategy implemented by workplaces was provision of Employee
Assistance Programs [EAPs] and access to general counselling services, which were provided
by almost 60% of workplaces surveyed. Almost 20% of all workplaces provided health or
medical programs for staff.
Alcohol and other drug testing programs, which were utilised by almost half of participating
workplaces, were the next most common strategy utilised by workplaces. Pre-employment
testing was the most common form of testing that was undertaken. Random alcohol or other
drug testing programs were implemented by just over a quarter of all participating
workplaces.
In addition to formal strategies such as policies, testing and counselling services, workplaces
employed a range of less formal, yet equally important, strategies in their response to
alcohol and other drug related harm. Nearly a third of workplaces nominated a positive
workplace culture as a protective factor against alcohol and other drug related harm.
Workplaces recognised the value of open communication and a supportive environment in
developing a positive workplace culture. Close supervision of staff was also identified as an
important strategy for both detecting and reducing alcohol and other drug related harm.
When asked what types of strategies had the most impact in reducing alcohol and other
drug related harm, workplaces identified testing programs, education, policies and
disciplinary action as having the most impact.
Workplaces were particularly seeking avenues where greater support could be provided.
The key area that workplaces want assistance with is clarification of their rights and
responsibilities in relation to managing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. Workplaces believed this could be achieved through advice, assistance,
information and awareness.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
7
Despite being concerned about alcohol and other drug related harm and generally wanting
further assistance to respond, most workplaces were not considering implementing any
additional strategies to enhance their existing responses.
The results of this phase of the project provide a valuable snapshot of what is currently
occurring in South Australian workplaces and a basis from which to move forward. Besides
providing many avenues from which to further address the issue, the research also highlights
the need for greater support to assist workplaces to enhance their current responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm. One of the challenges for future work will be to
determine how best to harness workplaces’ concern about this issue and translate this
concern into further action.
Phase Thr ee
Phase three of the research comprised a workshop with key stakeholders to review and
discuss the findings of the previous research phases, and to pursue options for
recommendations for future action and policy development. The workshop was held in May
2006 and was attended by 21 stakeholders from diverse sectors.
Outcomes of the stakeholder workshop largely reinforced findings from the literature review
and telephone survey. In particular, participants highlighted drug testing as a major issue
and noted the lack of clarity for workplaces regarding a number of issues (principally the
availability of existing resources and services, the nature and extent of workplace drug-
related harm and issues associated with testing programs).
Stakeholders noted that effective occupational health and safety initiatives were generally
based on involvement of those affected, open communication, workplace culture, and
quality practice. It was recognised that legislation may be utilised to ensure workplaces
initiate responses to alcohol and other drugs, but to ensure sustainable and effective
responses the issue must be owned by all involved.
The key areas for future action, as identified by workshop participants, centred on ensuring
quality practice, addressing operational factors, investigating different approaches and
increasing workplace motivation to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm. In
addressing these key areas, participants noted that the following areas must be investigated
in order to move forward:
? Development of measurable outcomes and performance indicators;
? Development of parameters for workplaces to operate within and investigate
regulatory approaches;
? Improvement of education and information mechanisms;
? Development of a ‘clearinghouse’ type service to assist workplaces through access
to information, resources and referrals.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 8
Workshop participants identified a number of barriers that may impact the manner in which
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is addressed. These barriers include:
? Identifying the most appropriate legislative framework which the issue fits under;
? Cultural norms (need to recognise that workplaces reflect wider cultural norms and
also reflect problems faced in the wider community);
? Need to be cognisant of the contentious nature of the issue and the potential for
agenda driven responses;
? Legislative approaches may not yield the best results as the legislative approach is
drawn out and the paucity of evidence for effective approaches makes legislative
requirements for workplace responses difficult.
Despite these barriers, it was recognised that this project is well placed to achieve further
action in this area due to the collaborative partnership between the lead agencies, industry
representatives and key stakeholders.
The key outcomes of the stakeholder workshop centre on the following issues:
? Improved data collection practices (including an audit of existing data sources) to
ensure the scope, nature and extent of drug-related harm in workplaces can be
quantified;
? Improved availability and marketing of services and resources able to assist
workplaces to address drug-related harm, possibly through the development of a
clearinghouse service;
? Legislative approaches should be investigated thoroughly to determine potential
impacts on employers and employees and where possible existing legislative
frameworks should be utilised;
? The potential to address drug issues through existing OHS channels may be
diminished somewhat if workplaces do not perceive drugs to impact on safety. In
this case it may be more appropriate to address these issues through an industrial
relations approach;
? Limited understanding of the effectiveness and appropriateness of alcohol and
drug testing is clearly a major issue for stakeholders and requires careful attention
through provision of accurate information to ensure informed decision making can
occur.
The workshop demonstrated that it is essential to identify who will take responsibility and
leadership for driving the issue and stakeholders should be engaged to ensure a partnership
approach whereby all can own the issue. The participants in the workshop were able to
provide a valuable contribution through their varied perspectives on the issues at hand.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
9
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE ACTION
Findings from the three research phases present a largely consistent view of alcohol and
other drug related harm in workplaces. The literature review, telephone survey and
stakeholder workshop all acknowledge workplace alcohol and other drug related harm as a
serious issue warranting both further research and resources to assist workplaces to respond.
In addition, all three phases highlighted a sense of uncertainty regarding the extent of the
problem and the most appropriate ways in which to respond. Beyond this, it is also clear
from this research that strong leadership is required to address the issues and take
responsibility for driving future responses. The findings from this research form the basis for
a comprehensive set of recommendations addressing priorities in progressing the issues
arising out of this project.
The recommendations identified in this report are synthesised from the findings from all
stages of this project (literature review, industry survey and stakeholder workshop). These
recommendations have been developed recognising that major gaps exist in the current
knowledge base regarding alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. These
gaps exist within the literature, data collections and evidence for best practice responses to
workplace alcohol and other drug related harm.
The project identified the following priority areas for action:
1. Providing strategic leadership to address the impact of alcohol and other drug related
harm in South Australian workplaces.
2. Identifying and disseminating best practice workplace responses to alcohol and other
drug related harm, through appropriate resources and service provision.
3. Improving data collection practices that build on an assessment of current data sources.
4. Supporting further research investigating the effectiveness of workplace responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm (building the evidence base).
5. Developing workforce capacity to ensure high quality service provision and resource
development.
These recommendations recognise these factors and seek to address the current limitations
impeding effective responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 10
1 Leadership
This research highlights the need for strong leadership to guide future efforts in South
Australia in responding to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. Whilst
recognising that the issue needs to be owned by all stakeholders, the research findings
suggest that future responses to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace should be led by
government, supported by employee and employer representatives. Accordingly, the
following recommendations are made in support of a coordinated leadership approach for
workplace alcohol and other drug issues:
Recommendation 1.1
It is recommended that the SafeWork Advisory Committee provides support for the
development of an interagency committee that is responsible for developing a cooperative
strategy to address the risks arising from alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The
strategy should include:
? Development of an education strategy
? Improvements in data collection practices (incorporating recommendations 3.1–3.6)
? Identification of research priorities (incorporating recommendations 4.1–4.4)
? Identification of opportunities for national linkages
Recommendation 1.2
It is recommended that membership of the proposed interagency committee include
SafeWork SA, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, Equal Opportunity Commission,
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, employer and employee
representatives and others invited to participate as required. Consideration should also be
given to having at least one member from the SafeWork Advisory Committee on the
interagency committee.
Recommendation 1.3
It is recommended that the proposed interagency committee be chaired and administered
by SafeWork SA.
Recommendation 1.4
It is recommended that opportunities for strategic direction and linkages at a national level
be investigated and pursued by the proposed interagency committee.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
11
2 Education and Dissemination of Information
A key outcome of this research is recognition of the need to clarify employer and employee
responsibilities in relation to alcohol and other drugs. In particular, it was noted that
workplaces want guidance in interpreting the practical implications of existing legislation in
South Australia and assistance to make informed decisions regarding appropriate responses
to alcohol and other drugs in their workplace. These findings demonstrate the importance of
a comprehensive education and dissemination plan in South Australia to raise the issue of
workplace alcohol and other drug related harm and provide avenues where support can be
accessed.
The following recommendations support a comprehensive educative approach aimed at
dissemination of best practice evidence to workplaces:
Recommendation 2.1
It is recommended that a comprehensive education and dissemination plan be developed
detailing resources and support services available to assist workplaces in responding to
alcohol and other drugs.
Recommendation 2.2
It is recommended that the draft guidelines for responding to workplace alcohol and other
drug related harm developed in conjunction with this project be endorsed and developed
for publication. The guidelines include:
? Practical information on how to identify and assess the risks associated with
alcohol and other drugs and how best to control those risks.
? Clarification of employer and employee responsibilities under all relevant
legislation.
Recommendation 2.3
It is recommended that existing resources and expertise on alcohol and other drugs be
assembled to assist employers to make informed decisions.
Recommendation 2.4
It is recommended that existing services are enhanced through the development of a portal
website and adjunct telephone support service to provide central access to up to date
information on workplace alcohol and other drug issues and links to relevant websites and
resources.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 12
Recommendation 2.5
It is recommended that a promotion/dissemination strategy be developed that targets
employers, opinion leaders, the SafeWork SA inspectorate, business advisers, private
providers, employee and employer representatives, workers compensation insurance
providers and claims agents, and others as identified.
Recommendation 2.6
It is recommended that an evaluation plan be developed to assess the impact of
promotional campaigns and service utilisation.
Recommendation 2.7
It is recommended that workplaces are encouraged to incorporate the following
components within their response to alcohol and other drugs:
? A comprehensive policy (including dissemination plan) developed through
consultative processes
? Identification of the factors which influence work-related alcohol and other drug
use and associated problems
? A focus on positive workplace culture
? Access to employee support services (such as employee assistance programmes)
Recommendation 2.8
It is recommended that workplaces only consider implementing drug testing if it is part of a
comprehensive strategy (as per recommendations 2.2 and 2.7) to address alcohol and other
drug related harm that is developed through extensive consultation with those affected.
3 Improved Data Collection
Findings from phase one of this research indicated that there are serious limitations in terms
of the breadth and quality of data collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace. One of the key challenges in addressing the impact of alcohol and other drugs in
workplaces is ensuring workplaces are motivated to proactively address the issue. In order to
facilitate workplace responses, there is a need to provide evidence that alcohol and other
drugs constitute a serious problem which needs to be addressed. The nature and extent of
alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces can only be demonstrated through
quality data. The lack of comprehensive, standardised data collection practices leaves the
nebulous understanding of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces
unchallenged.
The paucity of reliable and valid data exists across all industry and jurisdictional sectors and
has serious implications for future responses to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
Consequently, the following recommendations are made for improvements to current data
sets and collection techniques.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
13
Recommendation 3.1
It is recommended that the existing problem of inadequate baseline data be addressed
through the strategy developed by the proposed interagency committee..
Recommendation 3.2
It is recommended that an audit of existing data sets be conducted to determine gaps and
potential useability.
Recommendation 3.3
It is recommended that indicators of use, impairment and harm be identified to assist the
practical assessment of the nature and extent of workplace alcohol and other drug
problems.
Recommendation 3.4
It is recommended that relevant agencies who collect data (or have the potential to collect
data) that pertains to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace, adopt a
standardised approach for data recording to allow for ongoing analysis and comparison.
Recommendation 3.5
It is recommended that opportunities to integrate data on alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace into national data sets for occupational health and safety and workers’
compensation be investigated, in particular linkages to the National Data Set (NDS) and the
Comparative Performance Monitoring (CPM) reports.
Recommendation 3.6
It is recommended that specific probing questions in relation to alcohol and other drugs are
incorporated into the SafeWork SA accident investigation process and that these be
captured on existing databases for ongoing analysis.
4 Research Priorities
It is recognised that there is a need to improve the quality of evidence for workplace
responses to alcohol and other drug related harm. Future research should examine the
effectiveness of specific workplace interventions to inform best practice guidelines which
workplaces can follow. It is considered essential that further, well-designed research be
undertaken in order to demonstrate both the features and outcomes of best practice
responses.
Recommendation 4.1
It is recommended that controlled research be undertaken to evaluate workplace responses
to alcohol and other drug related harm in terms of improved outcomes.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 14
Recommendation 4.2
It is recommended that well designed research be undertaken that improves the collection
of data and supports the development of datasets that may be used to improve responses to
alcohol and other drug related harm.
Recommendation 4.3
It is recommended that funding for future research be investigated through grant schemes
and government funding schemes.
Recommendation 4.4
It is recommended that future research activities be undertaken with the specific intention
to enhance knowledge of incidents of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces.
These research activities should aim to complement suggested improvements to current data
collection techniques.
Note on recommendation 4.4: It is important to acknowledge the disincentives which may
contribute to under-reporting of incidents and issues arising from alcohol or other drugs in
the workplace. These disincentives may include concerns of punitive or disciplinary action
and the potential impact on workers compensation (if applicable). Further it is recognised
that not all incidents may be captured through improvements or alterations in current data
collection. There is a need therefore to initiate research activities which develop an
understanding of the existing and potential barriers to adequate data collection and the
ways in which these can be addressed.
5 Development within SafeWork SA, Drug and Alcohol
Services South Australia and Private Service Providers
In order to facilitate the achievement of improved outcomes for workplaces, it is essential
that agencies and individuals providing services and information receive appropriate training
to support high quality service provision. It is recognised that frontline professionals involved
in managing issues related to workplace alcohol and other drug harm must be provided with
adequate education and training to fulfil these roles.
Recommendation 5.1
It is recommended that SafeWork SA address the hazard of alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace with the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Inspectorate and the Help and
Early Intervention Centre. Training should be provided to the OHS inspectorate that
includes up to date information on the scope of options available to employers for
controlling the risks from alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
15
Recommendation 5.2
It is recommended that training be provided to staff at the Alcohol and Drug Information
Service and staff at the proposed telephone support service in terms of responses to
workplace alcohol and other drug issues and resources available.
Recommendation 5.3
It is recommended that service providers, such as Employee Assistance Program providers,
are engaged with to ensure that information regarding workplace alcohol and other drug
issues is consistent and accurate.
6 Carriage of the Recommendations
The recommendations outlined in this report represent the identified priorities for a
coordinated, strategic approach to alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. The
implementation of these recommendations will result in significant benefits for South
Australian workplaces through enhanced service provision and the availability of high
quality resources outlining evidence based approaches. In addition, improvements in data
collection practices and a commitment to future research will yield benefits for many
stakeholders through a more complete understanding of the impact of alcohol and other
drugs in workplaces.
The recommendations are proposed in anticipation that specific resources may need to be
attached to ensure they are attained. With support from the SafeWork SA Advisory
Committee, the proposed interagency committee would be well placed to implement many
of these recommendations if endorsed.
Recommendation 6
It is recommended that the SafeWork Advisory Committee take carriage of the
recommendations outlined in this report.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 16
CONCLUSION
The research undertaken for this project emphasises that work-related alcohol and other
drug use is not a problem isolated to the individual. Due to the breadth of harms and the
potential for significant impacts, stakeholders at all levels must be engaged to enhance
existing responses and support services. Alcohol and other drug-related harm in the
workplace requires more than a response levelled at the individual; it requires a holistic,
comprehensive approach that is supported by all concerned.
It is evident that alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces is critically under-
researched. The research conducted for this project demonstrates that it is essential that
further, well designed research be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of workplace
responses for reducing alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. An insufficient
evidence base, combined with inadequate data collections, hampers action and unless
addressed will inevitably lead to less than desirable outcomes. It is pertinent to also
investigate further how to integrate alcohol and other drug issues within existing frameworks
to increase chances of acceptability and reduce the burden of compliance on workplaces.
Perhaps the most encouraging component of this research is that there is clearly an impetus
to address workplace alcohol and other drug issues further. Workplaces require much more
information and direction, as they are concerned about the potential impact of alcohol and
other drugs in their workplace and it is clear that, for many, the issue of alcohol and other
drugs is a ‘hot topic’. This suggests that the timing may be right for further strategies aimed at
assisting workplaces and creating awareness of potential alcohol and other drug harms in
workplaces.
One of the key challenges for improving workplace responses to alcohol and drugs lies in
identifying who will take responsibility and leadership for driving the issue. A key challenge
will be drawing stakeholders together to ensure a partnership approach whereby all can
own the issue. However, this research project has certainly demonstrated that there is a
clear mandate to further address alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces, and
with strategic guidance and leadership positive outcomes for workplaces can be achieved.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006
17
REFERENCES
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) Drug Policy 2000: A New Agenda for
Harm Reduction (Accessed: 07/03/2005). Available: www.adca.org.au/DP2000.htm
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) 2004 National Drug Strategy Household
Survey: First Results. Drug Statistics Series No. 13, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. Canberra
Calogero, C., Midford, R., Towers, T. (2001) Responding to Drug-Related harm in the
Workplace: The Role of Prevention, Counselling, and Assistance Programs in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2002) Counting the Cost: Estimates of the Social Costs of
Drug Abuse in Australia in 1998-9. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra
Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J. W., Stockwell, T., Haines, B., Scott, K., Godfrey, C., Waters, E.,
Patton, G., Fordham, R., Gray, D., Marshall, J., Ryder, D., Saggers, S., Sanci, L.,
Williams, J., Carruthers, S., Chikritzhs, T., Lenton, S., Midford, R., Snow, P., Spooner,
C. (2004) The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A review of the
evidence. National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health.
Commonwealth of Australia
National Health and Medical Research Council (1997) Workplace Injury and Alcohol - Draft
Report. Canberra
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1998) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
Phillips, M. (2001b) The Prevalence of Drug-Use and Risk of Drug-Related Harm in the
Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications.
Pidd, K. (n.d) Drugs and Alcohol "Abuse" and Testing of Workers for the Presence of Drugs
and Alcohol. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction Bedford Park
South Australian Government (2003) South Australian Drugs Summit – Tackling Drugs:
Government and Communities Working Together. Government Response: Further
Initiatives. Government of South Australia.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 18
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
19
Appendix 1
Phase One Summar y
Repor t
Literature Summary
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 20
INTRODUCTION
The following report details a summary of the literature pertaining to alcohol and other drug
[AOD] related harm in the workplace. The aim of phase one of ‘The Impact of Alcohol and
Other Drugs in the Workplace’ project is to highlight key issues in this area and provide
sufficient background information to inform further phases of the project. The report
presents an overview of the nature of alcohol and other drug harm in workplaces and the
extent to which this harm occurs. The summary is divided into two broad sections – the first
examines alcohol and other drug related harms in the workplace and the second section
details responses to these harms.
The workplace is not impervious to alcohol and other drug issues – most people are in
employment and many people consume drugs, particularly alcohol. As noted by the
National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] (1997, p43), ‘Alcohol, like many
other health issues is not compartmentalised into work and non-work settings.’ Alcohol and
other drug use are but one of many challenges workplaces must confront. The workplace
does present particular challenges due to the potential for serious harms – including social
and financial costs resulting from accidents, injuries and productivity losses. Alcohol or other
drug harm occurring in the workplace context impacts on many groups including
government, service providers, employers, employees and their co-workers, carers and
families, and the social and financial costs are borne across the community.
Note: This report adopts the South Australian Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act
(1986) definition of workplace which states; ‘“Workplace” means any place (including any
aircraft, ship or vehicle) where an employee or self-employed person works and includes
any place where such a person goes while at work.’
1 Harms
Alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace setting can be broadly conceptualised
as encompassing two key areas:
? Fatalities and injuries and;
? Productivity related concerns
In addition to these harms, there are a range of incidental harms resulting from alcohol
and/or other drug use which may impact on the workplace. These include; impacts on the
health and welfare of the workforce, reduced morale, and interference with the work
environment due to relationship problems such as violence or abuse. The following section
seeks to delineate the extent of harms based on the available evidence. Following this is an
examination of prevalence of use in the workplace and the relationship between use and
harm.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
21
1.1 Fatalities
Finding: Alcohol is a contributing factor in an estimated 4% of work-related fatalities whilst
other drugs are estimated to contribute to 2% of work-related fatalities. In total, alcohol
and/or other drugs are involved in at least 5% of work-related fatalities in Australia.
Discussion
Phillips (2001b, pp27-30) outlines the role of alcohol and other drugs in workplace fatalities
and concludes that data from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission’s
[NOHSC] second Work-Related Traumatic Fatalities Study provide a reasonable estimate of
AOD involvement in work-related fatalities that is congruent with international data.
NOHSCs report estimates that alcohol and other drugs combined contribute to at least 5%
of work-related fatalities (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1998). The
estimates for South Australia were higher with alcohol a contributing factor in at least 6.4%
of work-related fatalities, whilst other drugs were associated with 3.2% of work-related
fatalities in the period 1989-1992 (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
1999). Work-related fatalities may occur in locations external to the workplace and thus
have the potential for further impact. For example, alcohol and other drugs have been
shown to contribute to work-related road fatalities for both the working person and
bystanders (Mitchell, Driscoll et al. 2004). These results indicate that the scope of harm
attributable to work-related alcohol and other drug use spreads beyond the immediate
working environment.
The types of drugs, other than alcohol, found to be involved in work-related fatalities
include amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis and narcotics (National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission 1998, p18). Where other drugs were a factor, stimulants were the
only type of other drug to be implicated in South Australian work-related fatalities (National
Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1999, p31). It must be noted that due to
limited data availability, particularly in relation to drugs other than alcohol, these figures
may be under-representative of actual occurrences. There is also the special issue of poly-
drug use. Curry and Theodorou (2002, p258) note that poly-drug use is becoming more
widespread. There are particular concerns relating to the concurrent use of certain
substances. For example, when cannabis and alcohol are combined the interactive effects
result in increased intoxication and impairment (Curry & Theodorou 2002, p260). Clearly,
the exacerbating effects of poly-drug use need to be considered in relation to the impact on
the workplace.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 22
The Australian data appear congruent with international comparisons which show that in
one examination of work-related fatalities in the United States approximately 5% returned
positive alcohol or other drug readings in toxicology reports (Greenberg, Hamilton et al.
1999). In terms of industry specific trends, Phillips (2001b, p29) notes that ‘…risky
industries do not appear to have a much greater proportion of alcohol-related fatalities than
less hazardous industries – a finding that contradicts many popularly held opinions.’
1.2 Injuries
Finding: Alcohol use is associated with 3% to 11% of workplace injuries, whilst the
involvement of other drugs is likely to be approximately 2%.
Discussion
The NHMRC (1997, pp11-2) and Phillips (2001b, pp30-6) note the disparate nature of
estimates of alcohol and other drug involvement in workplace injury. The NHMRC (1997,
p12) concurs with the findings of three reviews which found alcohol to be a factor in
between 3 and 11% of workplace injuries. Obtaining a reliable estimate for the involvement
of drugs other than alcohol is more problematic due to a lack of available data. Considering
that drugs other than alcohol are involved in 2% of work-related fatal injuries, the potential
exists to extrapolate this figure to injuries in general, in the absence of a sound evidence
base.
English and colleagues (1995, pp219-20) determined aetiologic fractions of morbidity and
mortality caused by alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs and found that hazardous and harmful
alcohol consumption caused 7% of occupational and machine injuries. In addition, they
determined ‘…that there is sufficient evidence that alcohol causes occupational and
machine injuries.’ [emphasis in original]. The relationship between drugs other than alcohol
and occupational and machine injuries was not addressed.
There is a dearth of literature and adequate data collection regarding alcohol and other drug
involvement in fatal and non-fatal workplace injury. The evidence outlined in the preceding
sections indicates that alcohol and other drugs are associated with fatal and non-fatal
workplace injury. Whilst some examples of the prevalence of this involvement are given
here, the true extent of alcohol and other drug-related workplace injury is largely unknown,
particularly for non-fatal injury. Estimates of alcohol and other drug involvement in work
injuries are likely to be conservative due to a number of factors. For instance, the sensitive
nature of the issue may result in underreporting of incidents and further, alcohol and other
drug testing may not be routinely conducted following a work-related injury.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
23
1.3 Productivity
Finding: Alcohol and other drug use result in reduction in the workforce and absenteeism
costs which exceed $2.9 billion. Drug related workplace accidents result in costs of
approximately $1.3 billion – half of which is borne by employers.
Discussion
The breadth of productivity related harm caused through alcohol and other drug related
impairment is addressed extensively. Phillips (2001b, p36) notes that alcohol or other drug
use may affect workplace productivity in the following ways:
? Losses caused by accidents
? Increased workers’ compensation premiums resulting from increased (drug-related)
claims
? Reduced work rate and poor quality of work because of inebriation or hangover
? Increased sickness absence
? Increased staff turnover and associated costs of training replacement workers
? Increased incidence of lateness for work
? Theft and damage to plant and machinery
These productivity implications are largely supported by Collins and Lapsley (2001, p111)
who add that the morale and health of the workforce can be impacted. The Alcohol and
Other Drugs Council of Australia [ADCA] (2000b, p18) notes that work-related AOD use
can also impact the safety and productivity of co-workers, again indicating that the scope of
alcohol and other drug harm is broader than the individual.
According to Collins and Lapsley (2002, p53), alcohol and other drug use resulted in costs in
excess of 2.9 billion dollars in Australia in 1998-99 due to reduced workforce and
absenteeism; costs associated with lost productivity on-the-job were not quantifiable in their
study. Utilising data from the 1995 Industry Commission Inquiry into Work, Health and
Safety, Phillips (2001b, p37) determined that the total costs associated with drug-related
workplace accidents in 1992-3 were in excess of one and a half billion dollars. Of this
amount, the cost to employers was estimated at 650 million dollars. Whilst it may be
possible to suggest that drug use could potentially result in positive outcomes for
productivity (e.g. the use of stimulants by long distance truck drivers to combat fatigue and
facilitate more hours on the road), the overarching view is that productivity is negatively
impacted by work-related alcohol and other drug use.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 24
1.4 Use/Impairment at Work
Finding: Reliable data that provide an overall estimate of the prevalence of AOD use or
AOD related impairment at work are not available, however 4.4% of participants in the
2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey indicated they went to work affected by
alcohol and 2% went to work affected by illicit drugs.
Discussion
Due to the nature of the activity in question, it is perhaps not surprising that a sound
evidence base regarding the prevalence of use or impairment at work does not exist. The
Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities determined that ‘Surprisingly little
work has been undertaken to estimate the prevalence of intoxication or being drug-affected
at work’ (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs
2003, p274, emphasis in original). The best overall picture comes from preliminary results
from the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey which show that 4.4% of
participants reported going to work affected by alcohol and 2% went to work affected by
illicit drugs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005). In addition, just over 6% of
survey respondents reported the workplace was their usual place of consumption of alcohol
and 11% indicated that that the workplace was their usual place of consumption of
pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
2005).
Some research has been conducted to ascertain the on the job consumption of alcohol and
other drugs in specific occupational groups, however small sample size and other limiting
features preclude the ability to generalise findings. Mabbott and Hartley (1999) undertook
research which examined the use of stimulants by Western Australian heavy truck drivers
and found that 27% (n=65) of the sample self-reported stimulant use (prescription, illicit
and over the counter) to combat fatigue on the job and the most commonly used stimulant
was amphetamines. Williamson and colleagues (2001) found, in a survey of Australian long
distance heavy vehicle drivers, that over 30% rated ‘stay awake drugs’ as the most effective
strategy to combat fatigue. Results from two studies (n=4193, n=749) involving Australian
police officers found 26% reported drinking at work at least sometimes and 23% were
affected by their co-workers alcohol consumption (Davey, Obst et al. 2000b, 2001). In a
study involving South Australian construction industry pre-vocational trainees and
apprentices, Pidd (2003) found that 19% regularly consumed alcohol in work-related hours
and 6.7% reported marijuana use during work-related hours.
Whilst the results from the above studies cannot demonstrate the prevalence of workplace
alcohol and other drug use across industry or occupational sectors, they do indicate that
alcohol and other drug use occur in the workplace and provide impetus to determine the
extent of harm arising from impairment. These studies also highlight how different
workplace factors and contexts may contribute to differential AOD harms.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
25
1.5 Relationship between Use and Harm
Finding: The practice of assessing harm in terms of levels of consumption is a flawed
approach. A more effective approach is to examine harm in terms of patterns of
consumption and impairment.
Discussion
Equating alcohol and other drug harm in the workplace with levels of exposure is
problematic in that it is not absolute that exposure to substances will cause harm. The value
of examining harm in terms of patterns of consumption and impairment, rather than simply
consumption or exposure, is highlighted by Newcomb (1994) and supported by Allsop and
Pidd who remark that ‘Identifying harm solely in terms of drug consumption is a flawed
approach’ (Allsop & Pidd 2001, p9). Phillips (2001b, p26) also questions the relevance of
general consumption data in elucidating the debate regarding workplace alcohol and other
drug use and related harm. The chief concern with consumption data is that general
consumption levels may or may not translate to problems at work. A more useful way of
approaching the issue might involve assessing patterns of consumption and the effects of any
consumption on the workplace directly. The rationale supporting this is that some patterns
of consumption are more harmful than others. For example, an individual whose
consumption pattern involves drinking two glasses of wine with dinner probably will not
impact on the workplace, but an individual whose consumption pattern involves a few
beers on their lunch break is more problematic for the workplace.
There is some evidence of employees under-estimating or discounting the effects of alcohol
and other drugs on their work. For example, Allsop (1987, cited in Nicholas, Allsop et al.
1996, p6) states that:
Paradoxically, it is not the relatively small number of very heavy drinkers in
the workplace who are associated with the greatest level of harm. Rather, it is
the much larger group of usually moderate drinkers who may occasionally
drink hazardously who are associated with the greatest amount of harm in the
workplace.
Similarly, Pidd (2004, p279) reports that a sample of South Australian apprentices believed
that work-related alcohol use would not impact on health and safety at work. Likewise, in a
study of Australian police officers, 22% stated that their drinking at work did not impact
their performance at work (Davey, Obst et al. 2001, p145). The National Rural Health
Alliance (1998) also observes that the ‘hangover’ effects of alcohol on performance are
underestimated in Australia. Again, this reinforces the value of examining alcohol and other
drug-related harm in the workplace in terms of patterns of consumption.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 26
2 Responses
The major responses to alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace detailed in
this section are:
? Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Policies
? Health Promotion
? Employee Assistance Programs, Counselling and Other Interventions
? Controls on Drug Use
.
2.1 Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Policies
Finding: Alcohol and other drug policies are an integral part of the organisational response
to workplace alcohol and other drug harm.
Discussion
Workplace AOD policies constitute an important level in the response to AOD issues. The
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) notes that whilst not all workplaces
have a formal AOD policy in place, all workplaces have some form of policy regarding AOD
use even if it is an unwritten, unspoken, ‘common knowledge’ agreement. ADCA (2000a)
suggests that ‘Every Australian workplace should have an AOD policy as part of their
broader occupational health and safety requirement, and as part of their insurance
arrangements.’ The importance of a workplace AOD policy is highlighted by Pidd (2003)
who found that apprentices who were employed in a workplace which had no AOD policy
engaged in more work-related illicit drug use than those employed where a clear policy was
in place. In terms of effective policy, Duffy and Ask (2001) provide an outline of the key
ingredients for a workplace AOD policy. Zinkiewicz and colleagues (2000, p71) suggest that
merely having a policy is not enough – there must be adequate dissemination of the policy
and education regarding it in the workplace.
There is some evidence to suggest a discrepancy exists between the size of a workplace and
its capacity to deal with AOD related issues. Allsop and Phillips, (cited in CCH OHS
Magazine 2004, p21), supported by Richmond and colleagues (1992), state that larger
companies are more likely to have a policy or program in place to address AOD issues, yet a
respondent to the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities advises that
small businesses are more likely to experience problems associated with drug use in the
workplace (Gardner, cited in House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and
Community Affairs 2003, p285). This sentiment is supported by Pidd and Cormack (2000)
who outline the importance of managing AOD issues despite the difficulties that small
businesses encounter due to resource availability.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
27
2.2 Health Promotion
Finding: The effectiveness of workplace health promotion in terms of costs and outcomes is
not certain. However, what is known from other domains indicates that well designed
health promotion activities provide a useful avenue for the prevention of harm.
Discussion
Historically, workplace health promotion has relied on an individualistic focus despite the
shift away from this approach in other health promotion domains (LaMontagne 2004, ;
Health Canada n.d). This individualistic approach ignores the interplay between the
individual and the structural, physical and psychosocial environments within which they
exist. Workplace health promotion should go beyond the individual to recognise the aspects
of the work environment that may impact workers health including AOD use (World Health
Organization Expert Committee on Health Promotion in the Workplace 1993). However, it
is also evident that simplistic notions of these activities as narrowly focused interventions to
promote individual lifestyle and behaviour change impede workplace health promotion.
Allsop and Pidd (2001, pp18-9) offer the most stinging criticism of a simplistic approach:
‘Simplistic, individually focused responses are likely at best, to be ineffective and, at worst,
to exacerbate problems.’
Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp60-5) reviewed the limited research relating to workplace
health promotion and concluded that methodological flaws detracted from some promising
interventions. Richmond and colleagues found that the effectiveness of workplace health
promotion activities, in terms of costs and outcomes, was not clearly articulated. Further,
there are barriers to implementing health promotion activities in the workplace. For
instance, in their research within the New South Wales Police Service and Australia Post,
Richmond and colleagues (1999, ; 2000) concluded that workplace culture can
detrimentally impact on workplace health promotion activities. In particular they
hypothesised that an entrenched aversive culture would require years of activity to build an
effective response (Richmond, Kehoe et al. 1999, p1520).
There is a dearth of evidence relating to workplace health promotion initiatives. Webb
(1999, pp36-7) notes that there are certain aspects, or outcomes, of health promotion that
cannot be measured. However, this does not mean that health promotion is a less valid
response to workplace AOD issues. Loxley and colleagues (2004, p174) concluded that
evidence from other domains supports the use of activities such as brief interventions for
reducing workplace alcohol and other drug use and the associated harms.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 28
2.3 Employee Assistance Programs, Counselling and Other Interventions
Finding: The effectiveness of Employee Assistance Programs [EAPs] in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm in the workplace remains largely unevaluated, whilst the evidence
base for counselling and other interventions in the workplace as a specific setting is poor.
Evidence from other domains suggests that these interventions do provide a potential
avenue for addressing alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace context.
Discussion
Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp69-72) determined that whilst there is a considerable
amount of literature that appears to support the use of EAPs in terms of their ability to
successfully rehabilitate clients, the lack of sound evaluation and scientific investigation in
the literature they reviewed requires that such support needs to be accepted with
reservations. Loxley and colleagues (2004, p172) reported that no conclusive evaluations
exist which establish the effectiveness of EAPs in addressing AOD problems. In defence of
EAPs and the workplaces who utilise them, Nicholas and partners (1996, p27) acknowledge
that EAPs are difficult to evaluate without extensive resources. However, given that EAPs
have been widely accepted and implemented, they do provide a potential avenue for
addressing alcohol and other drug related harm (Calogero, Midford et al. 2001, p104;
Loxley, Toumbourou et al. 2004, p172).
There are many interventions for workplace alcohol and other drug issues not covered
within the scope of health promotion activities or employee assistance programs.
Workplaces may not provide access to an EAP per se but may still offer access to counselling
or other interventions such as peer support programs, educational activities and specific
workplace programs to prevent or reduce alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. In addition, there are community based and private practice services that may
be utilised to assist employees facing alcohol or other drug related problems (Calogero,
Midford et al. 2001, p92). Allsop and colleagues (Allsop, Bush et al. 1997, pp81-5) reviewed
literature pertaining to various workplace interventions and found that in general the quality
of evidence was poor but there were some promising activities related to behavioural
counselling and awareness raising strategies.
Whilst there may be a limited evidence base to support the introduction or continuation of
activities aimed at reducing or preventing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace as a specific site, evidence available from other domains may be cautiously
extrapolated to the workplace setting. For example, Calogero, Midford and Towers (2001,
p104) note that many prevention, counselling and treatment methodologies offer effective
responses to alcohol and other drug problems in the broader community and these
interventions have the potential to be effective in the workplace if adapted for the context.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
29
Further to counselling and other intervention activities, workplace occupational health and
safety initiatives present a framework for addressing and responding to workplace alcohol
and other drug issues. Certainly, workplaces may not formally address alcohol or other drugs
in a policy or intervention sense but may have comprehensive occupational health and
safety guidelines which offer an avenue to respond to alcohol and other drugs.
2.4 Controls on Drug Use
Finding: There is limited evidence to support simple control measures, such as bans on use,
as a means to reduce harm. Alcohol and other drug testing is a contentious strategy and the
available evidence does not support the implementation of testing as a mainstream response
for dealing with workplace drug and alcohol issues due to various limitations.
Discussion
Controls on drug use include efforts to remove access to alcohol or other drugs in the
workplace, legislative approaches to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace and testing
protocols to determine exposure to alcohol and other drugs. Corry (2001, p106) notes that
the aim of controls on alcohol and other drugs in the workplace centre on regulating use
that can impact on the workplace. Workplaces may therefore prohibit the consumption of
substances at various locations or times in order to reduce problems arising out of
consumption. Allsop and colleagues (1997, pp72-7) reviewed the evidence for workplace
controls and found literature relating only to tobacco, indicating that research relating to
controls on alcohol and other drugs is severely limited. This is supported by Corry (2001),
who notes that there is very limited evidence referring to controls on alcohol and other
drugs compared with tobacco. In terms of legislative controls, Occupational Health, Safety
and Welfare legislation sets out the various obligations and responsibilities of employees and
employers relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace and provides a legal
framework for addressing alcohol and other drug issues in the workplace (Phillips 2001a,
pp138-44).
The most contentious effort to control alcohol and other drugs in the workplace is testing for
alcohol and other drugs. The literature regarding workplace drug testing consistently
highlights that it is an inappropriate mechanism for intervening in workplace alcohol and
other drug use. Pidd (n.d) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different forms of drug
testing and concludes that drug testing is unreliable and inaccurate for determining fitness
for duty and impairment. The problems associated with drug testing in the workplace are
further outlined by ADCA (2004, p4) which acknowledges that drug testing is an inadequate
measure of impairment, results in highly punitive responses, is often implemented in
isolation and few organisations evaluate its effectiveness in reducing workplace AOD harm.
This is supported by Crouch and colleagues (1989 cited in Richmond, Heather et al. 1992,
p82) who outline that many millions of dollars are spent on drug testing in the United States
in the absence of cost-benefit analyses. The NHMRC (2001, pp40-1) concludes that the
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 30
available evidence does not support the implementation of testing programs as a means to
counter alcohol-related problems in the workplace.
One of the main criticisms of workplace testing for illicit drugs is that most forms only detect
the presence of drug metabolites – a finding which does not necessarily indicate
impairment, simply consumption (Kapur 1994 cited in Macdonald 1997, p252). Macdonald
(1997) concludes that drug testing is not justifiable based on his review of the
epidemiological, laboratory and scientific evidence. One alternative option to intrusive drug
testing regimes is the use of an impairment measuring system. These systems require the
employee to complete a series of activities to detect impairment, yet suffer the same fate as
many other activities in that they are yet to be comprehensively evaluated (Nolan 2001,
pp72-3).
There are certainly contradictions within the literature around workplace drug testing. There
is some evidence to suggest that implementing a drug testing regime has a deterrent effect
for prospective employees in particular (Allsop et al 1997, Normand et al 1994, Baker 1997,
cited in Loxley, Toumbourou et al. 2004, p174). Yet, others suggest that rather than acting
as a deterrent to workplace drug use, drug testing can simply result in changes to drug taking
behaviour such as employees turning to substances that are less likely to be detected (Crow
& Hartman 1992). In this way, drug testing does not solve workplace drug issues; rather it
shifts the problem to a more furtive level. Further, Allsop and Phillips (1997, p1) note that
the success of pre-employment testing in reducing workplace drug issues is exaggerated and
that testing of existing employees has not been shown to have a positive effect on
productivity, safety or reduce drug-related impairment, in fact Pidd (n.d) even suggests that
drug testing may have a negative impact on productivity.
The different variations of drug testing clearly occupy a place in the overall response to
workplace AOD harm. Respondents to the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian
Communities noted that drug testing may be a requirement in certain scenarios where
issues of public safety are concerned (Gardner and ADCA , cited in House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs 2003, p288), and
Loxley and colleagues (2004, p174) conclude that in vocations that have safety critical
components, such as airline pilots, testing for alcohol and other drugs is more likely to be
accepted. Whilst there is by no means consensus regarding workplace drug testing, the
predominant conclusion in the literature is that drug testing is not justifiable as a routine
measure for either preventing or reducing drug related harm in the workplace.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
31
3 Work Environment
The work environment and culture of the workplace can have a profound impact on
employees. Employees do not exist in isolation – the structural, physical and psychosocial
aspects of the environment within which they exist affect them. Workplace culture can
influence the acceptability of alcohol and other drug use. In the police force, for example, it
is suggested that a culture of drinking within the force, and availability of alcohol, impact on
police officers drinking patterns (Hagen, Egan et al. 1992, ; Davey, Obst et al. 2000a,
2000b, 2001). The notion of workplace culture and availability impacting on work-related
alcohol and other drug use is supported by Lillibridge, Cox and Cross (2002, p226) in their
research with nurses. They found that the availability and ease of access to drugs in the
workplace were key drivers in nurses’ substance use. Pidd (2003) also found that certain
employment arrangements, such as employment status (full-time, part-time or unemployed
vocational students), workplace size and the presence of policies addressing alcohol and
other drugs, can impact on work-related alcohol and other drug use. The role of work
environment is further highlighted by the fact that, in 39% of work-related fatalities where
alcohol was a contributing factor, the alcohol was consumed either at work or at a work-
sponsored event (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1998, p18).
The NHMRC has found that risk factors for alcohol related work injuries include complex
relationships between the individual and environment (1997, p32; 2001, p31). In terms of
the aspects of the work environment which drive people to use alcohol or other drugs,
Midford (2001, p53) highlights the work of Hagen, Egan and Eltringham (1992) who
determined that pressure, stress, lack of control over work, equipment quality,
competitiveness and frequency of workplace arguments were associated with higher alcohol
consumption in certain occupations. In addition, Allsop and Pidd (2001, pp12-9) report that
a range of factors such as, alienation, stress, work culture and structural features of the
workplace, may impact on work-related AOD use.
4 Data Collections
The issues outlined in this report highlight that there are serious reservations regarding the
breadth and quality of data collections relating to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
For instance, it is evident that blood alcohol concentration [BAC] is not a routine check in
work-related fatalities – even those that are work-related road fatalities. Mitchell, Driscoll
and Healey (2004) report that BAC was only available for 81.4% of Australian work-related
road fatalities whilst other drug levels were available in only 46.2% of work-related road
fatalities. In South Australian work-related fatalities in the period 1989-1992, BAC was
available in only 80.8% of cases and information on other drug levels was only available for
27.2% of fatalities (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1999, pp30-1).
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 32
However, it must be acknowledged that in certain circumstances (such as delayed sample
collection after death), the collection of accurate data regarding an individual’s alcohol or
other drug levels may be hampered by technical concerns. It remains though that the lack of
comprehensive, standardised data collection techniques allows for and supports an
imprecise representation of alcohol and other drug related harm in the workplace. The
paucity of reliable and valid data extends to nearly all facets of the problem of alcohol and
other drugs in the workplace; injury and prevalence data, the impact of policies and
interventions and more. This has serious implications for all levels of the response to this
harm – if the true scope of the problem cannot be comprehended how can effective
responses be developed?
CONCLUSION
This report has highlighted that the consistent theme with regard to workplace interventions
is that further, well designed research needs to be undertaken to determine the
effectiveness of these strategies for reducing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. In addition, an insufficient evidence base from which to move forward hampers
action. Inadequate data collections and the absence of baseline data will inevitably lead to
less than desirable outcomes. Further impeding action in this area is a clear lack of action
and consensus regarding the major issues and how best to address these. As outlined by
ADCA (2000a), much of the evidence in Australia is anecdotal in nature and there are many
‘unknowns’. What is clear is that work-related alcohol and other drug use and related harms
are under-researched and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to address the issues.
What must be remembered is that work-related alcohol and other drug use is not a problem
isolated to the individual – it is a whole of workplace problem due to the breadth of harms
and the potential for significant impacts. As such, alcohol and other drug-related harms in
the workplace require more than a response levelled at the individual; it requires a holistic,
comprehensive approach that is supported by all concerned.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
33
References
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000a) Drug Policy 2000: A New Agenda for
Harm Reduction (Accessed: 07/03/2005) Available: www.adca.org.au/DP2000.htm
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2000b) Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of
Australia Submission to Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian Communities. ACT
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2004) Review of the Safety Benefits of
Introducing Drug and Alcohol Testing for Safety-Sensitive Personnel in the Aviation
Industry. Submission to The Department of Transport and Regional Services and the
Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
Allsop, S., Bush, R., Phillips, M., Midford, R., Vincent, N., Ask, A., Duffy, J., Bailey, M.,
Fowler, G., Sirenko, A. (1997) Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Australian Workplace: A
Critical Literature Review. National Centre for Education and Training. South Australia
Allsop, S., Phillips, M. (1997). An Overview of Drug Testing in the Workplace - Key Note
Address. R. Midford and P. Heale Under the Influence? Issues and Practicalities of
Alcohol and Other Drug testing in the Workplace, Western Australia, National Centre
for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse.
Allsop, S., Pidd, K. (2001) The Nature of Drug-Related Harm in the Workplace in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) 2004 National Drug Strategy Household
Survey: First Results. Drug Statistics Series No. 13, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. Canberra
Calogero, C., Midford, R., Towers, T. (2001) Responding to Drug-Related harm in the
Workplace: The Role of Prevention, Counselling, and Assistance Programs in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications.
CCH OHS Magazine (2004) Taking a Sober View. CCH OHS Magazine, December/January
2004: 20-3.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2001). Economic Costs of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the
Workplace. A. M. Roche and J. McDonald Systems, Settings, People: Workforce
Development Challenges in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Field, Adelaide, National
Centre for Education and Training on Addiction.
Collins, D. J., Lapsley, H. M. (2002) Counting the Cost: Estimates of the Social Costs of Drug
Abuse in Australia in 1998-9. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 34
Corry, A. (2001) Controls on Drug Use in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and
Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 105-17.
Crow, S. M., Hartman, S. J. (1992) "Drugs in the Workplace: Overstating the Problems and
the Cures." The Journal of Drug Issues, 22(4): 923-37.
Curry, K., Theodorou, S. (2002) The Poly-Drug User in Management of Alcohol and Drug
Problems. G. Hulse, J. White and G. Cape. Melbourne, Oxford University Press: 258-
72.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2000a) "The Use of AUDIT as a Screening Tool for
Alcohol Use in the Police Work-Place." Drug and Alcohol Review, 19(1): 49-54.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2000b) "Work demographics and officers'
perceptions of the work environment which add to the prediction of at risk alcohol
consumption within an Australian police sample." Policing: An International Journal of
police Strategies and Management, 23(1): 69-81.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., Sheehan, M. C. (2001) "It Goes with the Job: Officers' insights into
the impact of stress and culture on alcohol consumption within the policing
occupation." Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8(2): 141-9.
Duffy, J., Ask, A. (2001) Ten Ingredients for Developing and Implementing a Drug and
Alcohol Policy in Your Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and
Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 74-84.
English, D., Holman, C. D. J., Milne, E., Winter, M., Hulse, G., Codde, J., Bower, C., Corti,
B., deKlerk, N., Knuiman, M., Kurinczuk, J., Lewin, G., Ryan, T. (1995) The
Quantification of Drug Caused Morbidity and Mortality in Australia 1995.
Commonwealth Department of Human Services. Canberra
Greenberg, M., Hamilton, R., Toscano, G. (1999) "Analysis of Toxicology Reports from the
1993-94 Census of fatal Occupational Injuries." Compensation and Working
Conditions, Fall 1999: 26-8.
Hagen, R., Egan, D., Eltringham, A. (1992) Work, Drugs and Alcohol. Victorian
Occupational Health and Safety Commission Melbourne
Health Canada (n.d) Literature Review: Evaluations of Workplace Health Promotion
Programs. Health Canada. Ottawa
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs (2003)
Road to Recovery: Report on the Inquiry into Substance Abuse in Australian
Communities. Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
35
LaMontagne, A. D. (2004) Integrating Health Promotion and Health Protection in the
Workplace in Hands-on Health Promotion. R. Moodie and A. Hulme. Melbourne, IP
Communications: 285-98.
Lillibridge, J., Cox, M., Cross, W. (2002) "Uncovering the Secret: Giving voice to the
Experiences of Nurses who Misuse Substances." Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39(3):
219-29.
Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J. W., Stockwell, T., Haines, B., Scott, K., Godfrey, C., Waters, E.,
Patton, G., Fordham, R., Gray, D., Marshall, J., Ryder, D., Saggers, S., Sanci, L.,
Williams, J., Carruthers, S., Chikritzhs, T., Lenton, S., Midford, R., Snow, P., Spooner,
C. (2004) The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A review of the
evidence. National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health.
Commonwealth of Australia
Mabbott, N. A., Hartley, L. R. (1999) "Patterns of Stimulant Drug Use on Western Australian
Heavy Transport Routes." Transportation Research Part F, 2: 115-30.
Macdonald, S. (1997) "Work-Place Alcohol and Other Drug Testing: A Review of the
Scientific Evidence." Drug and Alcohol Review, 16(251-9).
Midford, R. (2001) The Nature and Extent of Drug-Related Harm in the Community and the
Implications for the Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other
Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero.
Melbourne, IP Communications: 42-55.
Mitchell, R., Driscoll, T., Healey, S. (2004) "Work-related road fatalities in Australia."
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36: 851-60.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1997) Workplace Injury and Alcohol - Draft
Report. Canberra
National Health and Medical Research Council (2001) Workplace Injuries and Alcohol:
Draft Report of the NHMRC Workplace Injury and Alcohol Working Party. National
Health and Medical Research Council.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1998) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1999) Work-Related Traumatic
Fatalities in South Australia, 1989-1992. National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Canberra
National Rural Health Alliance (1998) Drugs and Alcohol in Rural Australia. National Rural
Health Alliance
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 36
Newcomb, M. D. (1994) "Prevalence of Alcohol and Other Drug Use On the Job: Cause for
Concern or Irrational Hysteria?" The Journal of Drug Issues, 24(3): 403-16.
Nicholas, R., Allsop, S., Calogero, C., Phillips, M., Ormonde, N. (1996) Alcohol and Other
Drugs in the Workplace: Issues, Trends and Practices. The Chamber of Mines and
Energy Western Australia in collaboration with the WA Alcohol and Drug Authority.
Nolan, J. (2001) Employee Drug Testing: Some Recent Legal Developments in Drugs and
Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. S.
Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP Communications: 60-73.
Phillips, M. (2001a) Designing and Implementing Effective Occupational Health and Safety
Initiatives in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications: 138-44.
Phillips, M. (2001b) The Prevalence of Drug-Use and Risk of Drug-Related Harm in the
Workplace in Drugs and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Australian Workplaces. S. Allsop, M. Phillips and C. Calogero. Melbourne, IP
Communications.
Pidd, K. (2003) The Work-Related Drug Use of Adolescent Apprentices: Testing a Revised
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Flinders University of South Australia, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation.
Pidd, K. (2004) "The Impact of Workplace Support and Identity on Training Transfer: A Case
Study of Drug and Alcohol Safety Training in Australia." International Journal of Training
and Development, 8(4): 274-88.
Pidd, K. (n.d) Drugs and Alcohol "Abuse" and Testing of Workers for the Presence of Drugs
and Alcohol. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction Bedford Park
Pidd, K., Cormack, S. (2000) "Developing an Effective Response to Alcohol and Other Drug
Related Harm in the Workplace." Safety in Australia, 23(2): 23-7.
Richmond, R., Heather, N., Holt, P., Hu, W. (1992) Workplace Policies and Programs for
Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs in Australia. National Campaign Against Drug Abuse
Monograph Series, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra
Richmond, R. L., Kehoe, L., Hailstone, S., Wodak, A., Uebel-Yan, M. (1999) "Quantitative
and Qualitative Evaluations of Brief Interventions to Change Excessive Drinking,
Smoking and Stress in the Police Force." Addiction, 94(10): 1509-21.
Richmond, R. L., Kehoe, L., Heather, N., Wodak, A. (2000) "Evaluation of a Workplace Brief
Intervention for Excessive Alcohol Consumption: The Workscreen Project." Preventive
Medicine, 30: 51-63.
Appendix 1: Phase One Summary Report: Literature Summary
37
Webb, D. (1999) Current Approaches to Gathering Evidence in Evidence-Based Health
Promotion. E. R. Perkins, I. Simnett and L. Wright. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons: 34-
46.
Williamson, A., Sadural, S., Feyer, A.-M., Friswell, R. (2001) Driver Fatigue: A Survey of
Long Distance Heavy Vehicle Drivers in Australia. National Road Transport Commission
Victoria
World Health Organization Expert Committee on Health Promotion in the Workplace
(1993) Health Promotion in the Workplace: Alcohol and Drug Abuse. WHO Technical
Report Series, World Health Organization Geneva
Zinkiewicz, L., Davey, J., Obst, P., Sheehan, M. (2000) "Employee Support for Alcohol
Reduction Intervention Strategies in an Australian Railway." Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 7(1): 61-73.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 38
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
39
Appendix 2
Phase Two Summar y
Repor t
Survey Results
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 40
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alcohol and other drug use present a significant burden to the community and as such signal
a major public health concern. The workplace brings together people in society and reflects
general health problems. Alcohol and other drugs cost individuals, industry and society
through social and economic burden.
SafeWork SA and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia are working in partnership to
address the impact of alcohol and other drugs in workplaces through a joint research
project. The project is aimed at assembling the existing evidence for the nature and extent
of alcohol and other drug related harm in South Australian workplaces and recommended
practice in preventing and responding to that harm.
The following report details the results of research undertaken for phase two of The Impact
of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project. This research phase is designed to
identify the strategies South Australian workplaces use to prevent and respond to potential
and actual alcohol and other drug related harm.
This exploratory research involved semi-qualitative telephone interviews with 110 South
Australian workplaces to develop a broader understanding of the following key areas:
? Issues affecting workplaces in relation to alcohol and other drug related harm;
? Current strategies in place to respond to alcohol and other drug related harm in
South Australian workplaces;
? The strategies workplaces are considering implementing to further respond to
alcohol and other drug related harm;
? The strategies workplaces think have had the most impact in reducing alcohol and
other drug related harm;
? Areas where workplaces want greater support.
Results indicate that workplaces are generally concerned about the issue of alcohol and
other drug related harm. Workplaces in this research are most concerned about the
potential impact that alcohol and other drugs may have on safety, with over seventy per
cent of workplaces indicating concerns related to safety.
Workplaces utilise policy and a range of strategies to respond to alcohol and other drug
related harm. Key findings from this research indicate that the majority of workplaces (96%)
had a policy or at least one specific strategy in place to address alcohol and other drug
related harm.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
41
Workplaces generally used policies as a first line response to alcohol and other drug related
harm with almost nine out of ten participating workplaces having a policy in place.
Provision of an Employee Assistance Program or access to counselling services was the most
common specific strategy utilised by workplaces. Alcohol and other drug testing programs,
which were utilised by almost half of participating workplaces, followed this.
In addition to formal strategies such as testing and counselling services, workplaces
employed a range of less formal, yet equally important, strategies in their response to
alcohol and other drug related harm. Nearly a third of workplaces nominated a positive
workplace culture as a protective factor against alcohol and other drug related harm.
However, workplaces believed that testing and education had the most impact in actually
reducing this harm.
Workplaces were particularly able to provide avenues where greater support could be
provided. The key areas that workplaces want assistance with is clarification of their rights
and responsibilities in relation to managing alcohol and other drug related harm in the
workplace. Workplaces believed this could be achieved through advice, assistance,
information and awareness.
Despite being concerned about alcohol and other drug related harm and generally wanting
further assistance to respond, most workplaces were not considering implementing any
additional strategies to enhance their existing responses. One of the challenges for future
work in this area is to determine how best to harness workplaces concern about this issue
and translate this concern into further action.
Responses from workplaces involved in this research provide many avenues from which to
further address the issue of alcohol and other drug related harm in workplaces. This
research also highlights the need for greater support to assist workplaces to enhance their
current responses to alcohol and other drug related harm.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 42
INTRODUCTION
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace project is a joint initiative of
SafeWork SA and Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia. The project seeks to assemble
the existing evidence for the nature and extent of alcohol and other drug related harm in
workplaces and recommended practice in preventing and responding to that harm. The
project involves three linked phases of research:
? Phase One: Literature Review
? Phase Two: Targeted telephone survey
? Phase Three: Stakeholder Workshop
The following report presents the results of phase two of this research project. Phase two
comprised a targeted telephone survey of South Australian workplaces to identify the
strategies in place to prevent and respond to potential and actual alcohol and other drug
related harm in the workplace. This report presents an overview of the results of the survey
together with analysis and discussion of these results.
1 Methodology
1.1 Method
The research design was exploratory in nature and involved a descriptive, cross-sectional
method. Data collection comprised a semi-qualitative telephone interview, a copy of which
is attached (Appendix 2D). Responses were recorded in note form by the interviewer.
Interviews were conducted with workplaces in three target industries (construction,
transport and manufacturing) and were selected via a non-probability sampling approach,
quota sampling, which is outlined further in section 1.2. A pilot of the survey was conducted
in July 2005 from which adjustments were made to the question set. The survey
commenced in August 2005 and all interviews were completed by the end of October
2005.
Due to the nature of the qualitative methodology utilised, the results of this research are not
applicable to all workplaces and thus are not generalisable. The results do provide a useful
snapshot of the experience of a small number of South Australian workplaces and can
inform further research which may be extrapolated to cover a greater proportion of South
Australian workplaces.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
43
In order to ensure a range of perspectives were gained through this research, Health and
Safety Representatives (HSRs) in the target industries involved in the telephone survey were
contacted to ascertain their views on the impact of alcohol and other drugs in the
workplace. Over 500 HSRs were contacted in September 2005 via email through the HSR
register held by Workcover Corporation. A reminder was sent to all contacts two weeks after
the initial request. HSRs were asked to respond to a brief set of questions which had been
modified from the original set used with workplaces. Thirteen responses were received by
mid-October. See Appendix 2B for results.
1.2 Sampling
The survey sample comprised workplaces in the construction, transport and manufacturing
industries. The decision to survey a sample of target industries rather than a sample of all
workplaces was based on the need to refine the scope of the project and direct the research
to areas of need.
In selecting the target industries consideration was given to a number of issues. There is no
clear basis in the available evidence for identifying which industries experience the highest
levels of alcohol and other drug related harm. As a result, a decision was taken to examine
those industries with the highest levels of occupational related harm, irrespective of cause.
In addition, it was considered pertinent to align the target industries with state and national
priority areas. The construction, transport and manufacturing industries have been
consistently identified as high risk in terms of general health and safety concerns and appear
prominently in Australian worker’s compensation statistics (see www.workcover.com).
The sampling approach involved identifying ‘high-risk’ and ‘low-risk’ workplaces within
each industry cluster. This was determined through assessing overall workers compensation
statistics for the companies. High risk workplaces were identified as those who had higher
than industry average workers compensation claims in terms of numbers and costs, whilst
low risk workplaces were lower than the industry average. The clusters included a cross-
section of small, medium and large workplaces (based on Australian Bureau of Statistics
definitions). The following matrix details the cells within the sample:
Construction Manufacturing Transport
High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk
Small Small Small
Medium Medium Medium
Large Large Large
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 44
A target of 90 participating workplaces was set based on the need for five workplaces in
each of the 18 cells. A response rate of approximately 40% was anticipated requiring an
initial database of 234 workplaces, which was supplied by Workcover Corporation. Sixty-
nine workplaces were removed from this database for a number of reasons (including
current investigations or prosecutions, insufficient contact details, duplicate listings, sole
traders and no longer operating) leaving 165 workplaces eligible for participation.
Workplaces were contacted through a three-stage mailout commencing in August 2005
1.3 Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using the computer software Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS version 13.0). Data were analysed through a series of crosstabulations and
using non-parametric statistical tests where appropriate. In addition to the use of the
Statistical package for Social Sciences, qualitative data were analysed through input into
word processing software to allow for identification of themes and repetition.
The question set and pattern of responses delineate a clear set of five domains of results.
These can be simply expressed as follows and provide the focus for the presentation of
results in this report:
? Identification of issues
? Current strategies
? Intention to respond further
? Strategies that have had greatest impact
? Areas for support
2 Description of the sample
The pool of potential participants was 165, of which 33.3% (n=55) either refused
participation directly or were not pursued any further after several call-backs. One hundred
and ten workplaces participated in the survey, representing 66.7% of the potential pool.
Table 1 indicates the distribution of completed interviews across the 18 cells; figures in
brackets indicate the percentage of workplaces as a proportion of the potential participating
workplaces in each category. The initial target was five interviews per cell; some cells were
oversubscribed due to higher than expected participation rates.
Appendix 2: Phase Two Summary Report: Survey Results
45
Table 1: Distribution of workplaces
Construction Manufacturing Transport
High
Risk
Low
Risk
High
Risk
Low
Risk
High
Risk
Low
Risk
TOTAL
Small 5 6 4 6 1 5 27
Medium 6 6 9 6 11 11 49
Large 7 4 8 9 4 2 34
TOTAL
(As % of potential
category participants)
18
(60%)
16
(67%)
21
(68%)
21
(75%)
16
(60%)
18
(72%)
110
(66.7%)
Targets for participation across all risk and size categories were exceeded, except for the
category of small businesses which fell three short of the target 30 workplaces
1
.
It is important to consider the characteristics of workplaces that did not participate. Overall,
38.6% of high risk workplaces and 27.3% of low risk workplaces that were eligible to
participate refused participation or were not pursued after several callbacks. Fifty percent of
eligible small workplaces refused participation or were not pursued, compared with 35.5%
of medium workplaces and 2.9% of large workplaces.
The initial sample provided by Workcover Corporation estimated the size of companies
based on worker’s compensation levy amounts. As part of the data collection process,
workplaces were asked how many people their organisation employed. Workplaces were
then re-categorised based on this data and all results in this report refer to the actual
company size. It was found that workplaces often varied from the estimated size provided in
the original database with 21 being a different size to that originally indicated. This
particularly impacted the small cells. The variations in size encountered are listed in table 2:
Table 2: Variations in company size
Expected Size Actual Size Number of occurrences
Small Medium 10
Small Large 1
Medium Small 3
Medium Large 4
Large Medium 3
1
Further information regarding sample characteristics, including non-participators, can be found in Appendix 2A.
The Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Final Project Report 2006 46
2.1 Location
Twenty workplaces, representing 18.2% of the total number of participating workplaces,
were identified as being located in a regional area.
2.2 Size
Workplaces were asked to report the number of employees to determine actual size. Based
on these figures, small businesses (those employing less than 20 people) accounted for
24.5% (n=27) of the sample, whilst 44.5% (n=49) were identified as medium businesses
(employing 20-199 people) and 30.9% (n=34) were identified as large businesses
(employing 200 or more people). The median number of employees across all participating
workplaces was 62.5.
2.3 Risk
Fifty per cent of workplaces (n=55) were identified as high-risk’ workplaces and 50%
(n=55) were identified as being ‘low-risk’ workplaces.
2.4 Gender
Workplaces were asked what percentages of employees were male and female. The mean
percentage of males in the workplaces was 82.8%; the mean percentage of females in the
workplace was 17.2%. Just over three quarters (75.5%, n=83) of workplaces indicated that
males comprised 75% or more of their workforce, 5.5% (n=6) workplaces indicated that the
percentage of male employees in their workplace was 50% or less.
2.5 Age
Workplaces were asked what percentages of employees were in the following size
categories: 15-24, 25-44, 45-54, and over 55. The mean percentage of employees aged 15-
24 years was 12.9%, the mean percentage of employees aged 25-44 years was 49.2% and
the mean percentage of employees aged 45-54 was 26.1%. The mean percentage of
employees aged 55 or over was 11%. There was a significant correlation between the size of
an organisation and the age profile of its workforce in that the larger the organisation the
higher percentage of employees aged 15-24 years (Kruskal Wallis df=2, p=.013, n=106).
2.6 Employment Status
Workplaces were asked about the employment status of their employees. The mean
percentage of casual employees was 19.6%, the mean percentage of part-time employees
was 3.4%, the mean percentage of full-time employees was 70.4% and the mean
percentage of labour hire employees was 6.6%. A strong negative correlation was found
between the percentage of casual employees and size of organisation – the larger the
organisation the lower the percentage of casual employees (Spearman’s Rho r= -.246,
n=105, p