One of the key challenges in managing the Health Promoting Workplace is the development of an effective policy for the control of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). This paper explores the ethical consequences raised when the implementation of such a policy was evaluated in a large multi-campus university. In a three-stage evaluation, the first stage involved a qualitative enquiry with the Health and Safety Committee to obtain the management perspective on the working of the policy. A survey of the perception of the ETS policy and smoking behaviours with a representative sample of staff and students constituted the second stage. In the final stage the Health and Safety Committee was engaged with the findings of stages 1 and 2 to develop a response to the evaluation. The ethical implications which arise from this evaluation centre, firstly, on the underlying reasons for undertaking an evaluation. Secondly, consideration is given to the consequences of applying utilitarian principles to smoking policy for the minority who smoke and thus find their work or study patterns affected by a smoking ban. Such a ban limits their autonomy and while it may be helpful (beneficent) in terms of their longer-term physical health, it may have harmful (maleficent) effects on their psychological wellbeing and the potential for negative consequences if they choose to contravene the ban on smoking. The implications of addressing this situation are explored.
The creation of health promoting workplaces is a key development in contemporary workplace health. This paper focuses on the issue of workplace violence and the efforts which must be made to address its prevention and to deal with its consequences as a contribution towards developing a health promoting workplace. A critical overview of the issue as it is currently addressed in the international literature is a precursor to the formulation of an inclusive definition of workplace violence. This forms the basis for a framework for the development and implementation of workplace violence policies. The framework takes account of needs assessment, policy formulation in terms of prevention, incident management and reporting, and post-incident support strategies. The needs for effective education and training and good internal and external communications are also explored. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity for workplaces to take seriously the need for a coherent and well-planned workplace violence strategy.
Selected aspects of the efficacy of printed leaflets produced by a government health and safety agency and widely distributed by the enforcement bodies and other organisations to promote workplace health and safety are examined. It is based on a study of 30 small or medium-sized enterprises and examines the views of 120 employers and employees regarding the availability, attractiveness, relevance and usefulness of the leaflets and estimates the reader comprehension and readability of the selected leaflets. The results indicate that the selected leaflets are considered acceptable and comprehensible by the majority of respondents. As these are typical of the leaflets available in the health and safety field this is a positive outcome. The discussion focuses around the ability of the leaflets to engage and to inform and suggestions are made to encourage a wider debate on the criteria which contribute to these two aspects of leaflet use. It is contended that leaflets will continue to be important in the attempts of those involved in workplace health and safety to facilitate learning and to contribute to the overall process of behaviour change. This study raises a number of key issues regarding the future design and use of such leaflets.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.