Drink and drugs in the workplace

Times have changed. Society’s attitude towards things like drink driving have changed hugely in recent decades. But it’s not quite the same when it comes to alcohol – and indeed drugs – in the workplace.

In September of 2024 the British Safety Council reported that 40% of industrial accidents were linked to substance misuse, alcohol was responsible for 20%-30% of all recorded accidents, and that half of all workplace fatalities involved alcohol.

This is not new a problem; it was recognised by the Royal Navy back in July 1970 when the daily ‘tot’ was discontinued due to concerns that alcohol consumption was a safety risk for sailors operating complex machinery in a modern navy.

But beyond the matter of alcohol abuse is the recreational use of drugs by drivers and employees. The physical incarnation may be different but the effect on the individual can be just as harmful.

And it’s why the HSE has a page on its website entitled ‘Managing drug and alcohol misuse at work’.

The issues

Tina Chander, head of employment law at Wright Hassall, considers safety, reliability and productivity to be issues in the workplace and cause for concern when substances are involved. As she highlights, “employees under the influence of drugs or alcohol can experience impaired judgement, slower reaction times and reduced concentration. This increases the risk of accidents which could lead to serious injury or even fatalities, especially in safety-critical roles involving machinery, driving or physical labour in places such as factories, warehouses or construction sites.”

Risks aside, she says that from an employer’s perspective, under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, “employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees and others. Allowing impaired staff to work could expose the business to liability if accidents occur.”

But beyond safety matters, substance misuse causes absenteeism, mistakes, poor decision-making, poor performance and strained working relationships. It may also lead to reputational damage for an employer if an employee’s conduct affects clients or the public.

And this is something that Mandy Robson, head of business services at BOSS partner, BPIF picks up upon. As she says, “It’s much broader than just the odd hangover or someone being unreliable. The impact runs right through productivity, safety and culture. Hangovers alone are estimated by the Institute of Alcohol Studies to cost the UK economy £1.4 billion a year, through reduced alertness, concentration and decision making.”

She’s of the view that a culture that overlooks heavy drinking or substance use “can normalise poor behaviour, from lateness and friction between colleagues to, in some cases, harassment or inappropriate conduct at work events... it’s not just about lost productivity, it’s about trust, consistency and keeping both people and the business safe.”

Abuse in recent years

Chander sees alcohol misuse as the most common substance related issue in workplaces. She’s also seen a notable increase in the number of employers wishing to undertake random drug tests on their staff.

Several factors appear to underpin this shift. She says that “Social attitudes towards alcohol have evolved, with many younger workers drinking less and preferring a healthier lifestyle. Conversely, the use of recreational drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and nitrous oxide has become more visible and, in some circles, more socially accepted.” Chander backs her views by citing ONS and NHS Digital surveys over the past decade that show a gradual decline in harmful alcohol consumption, while overall drug use has remained relatively stable though certain substances, such as cannabis and cocaine, have seen a slight increase in use among younger adults.

Notably, employers are reporting increased issues involving the misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications that are often linked to mental health challenges or chronic pain. It doesn’t help that a rise in remote and hybrid working has made detection and monitoring more difficult for obvious reasons.

This latter issue is not yet, in Chander’s view, being widely discussed. The concern is that remote and hybrid working has made it harder for employers to identify signs of impairment and monitor compliance with drug and alcohol policies. “This,” she says, “raises new challenges around duty of care, confidentiality and reasonable monitoring. Employers need to update their policies, making it clear that the same standards of conduct apply whether an employee is working on-site, from home or elsewhere.”

Robson worries that much of the behaviour is hidden: “Most people aren’t going to admit to using drugs at work.” She says that “what we do know is that drug use is becoming more visible than it was. Treatment services show that while alcohol problems remain common, drug-related cases are increasing, sometimes alongside alcohol. So, the picture is shifting slightly, but it’s important to be cautious”. But for her, “the true prevalence of drug use is very hard to measure as much of it happens behind closed doors”.

All of this, for Chander, means that it’s logical for employers to want to look closely at their current policies and make adaptations to reflect today’s workplace. She says that “employers are starting to adopt a single, integrated drug and alcohol policy, treating both issues under the same framework to ensure consistent risk management, legal compliance and support mechanisms for affected employees”.

It is important to note that there is no industry or role immune to substance misuse. However, Robson’s experience tells her that “in safety-critical industries, like construction, transport, or printing, the risks are more obvious, so policies and testing tend to be stricter. But in office-based roles, issues can be more hidden, showing up as presenteeism, mistakes, or burnout.”

Chander notes here the problems with white collar workers, that “in professional roles, stress, long hours and client pressures can drive dependency on alcohol or stimulants as a coping mechanism.”

But the statistics are telling. Robson points to ONS data that shows that 8.8% of 16-59-year-olds used some drugs in the past year, and 3% used Class A drugs. Alcohol use remains far more common, in 2023 24 there were over a million alcohol-related hospital admissions in England. As Robson explains, “these figures don’t state use at work, data on that will be hard to find, but they do highlight the scale of the problem and the importance of policies. Additionally, the stigma surrounding drug use often leads to underreporting, making it challenging to obtain accurate workplace-specific data.”

With Gen Z consuming less alcohol than their older counterparts but using drugs, particularly cannabis and stimulants, more, so Chander reckons that employers need to tailor their communication and support strategies to reflect these cultural and generational differences.

Telltale signs

As to the signs of substance abuse that employers can look out for, they include the smell of alcohol or strong-smelling drugs like weed, slurred speech, unsteady gait, bloodshot eyes, and erratic and unpredictable behaviour. Employers may also notice a decline in performance, unexplained absences, poor timekeeping, or an increase in accidents and near misses.

Robson reckons that the signs are clear to see – if looked for. “It’s often the subtle changes. You might notice the smell of alcohol, erratic behaviour, or frequent ‘Monday illnesses’.” She sees colleagues sometimes raising concerns but thinks that managers are likely to already be picking up on patterns – small things that over time point to a problem.

Regardless, Chander advises managers to avoid jumping to conclusions as symptoms of stress, fatigue or medical and mental health conditions may appear similar. She considers it “best practice to record observations objectively and refer matters to HR or occupational health for assessment rather than making direct accusations. Confidentiality must always be maintained.”

Managing the situation

When suspicions of abuse arise, employers have a duty of care to employees but also need to keep in mind the matter at hand. They should act promptly but fairly. Chander says that if an employee appears impaired, suspension may be appropriate whilst the matter is investigated. “This should be treated as a neutral act, not a disciplinary sanction. During the investigation, employers should seek to determine whether the issue is one of misconduct (say, drinking during work hours) or dependency (which may indicate a potential health problem)."