One of the questions I get asked reasonably often is whether an organisation should introduce drug and alcohol testing. Sometimes that question relates to employees or sometimes contractors. Working in the events industry, I have even had organisers ask whether they should be testing patrons before they leave an event so they know whether those patrons are safe to drive home.
Although the circumstances vary enormously, the question behind them is almost always the same. Will introducing testing make people safer?
So whenever I am asked that question I ask what risk they are actually trying to manage. Nine times out of ten, the conversation ends up somewhere completely different because organisations are often trying to solve one problem with a control that was designed for another. Before deciding whether testing is appropriate, we first need to understand the hazard and the risk sitting behind it. Without that understanding, there is a real danger that testing is introduced simply because it feels like the responsible thing to do, rather than because it is actually the most appropriate control.
Those conversations uncover a wide range of concerns. One organisation may have experienced an incident involving alcohol. Another may be responding to a contractual requirement. A hospitality venue may be concerned about staff consuming alcohol whilst on shift, while another employer may be thinking about employees driving between sites. Sometimes the concern genuinely is drug or alcohol use. Quite often it turns out to be about fatigue, supervision, workplace culture or uncertainty about what the organisation’s obligations actually are.
There are certainly workplaces where drug and alcohol testing has an important role to play. High-risk industries, safety-critical roles and some contractual environments may all justify a structured testing programme. However, testing should follow a risk assessment rather than replace one. It is one control within a broader risk management framework, not a safety management system in its own right.
One of the reasons these conversations become complicated is because organisations often use the terms drug and alcohol testing, impairment and fitness for work interchangeably, when they are not the same thing. Drug and alcohol testing may identify the presence of alcohol or particular substances. Fitness for work asks a much broader question. Is this person physically and mentally capable of carrying out their work safely at this point in time?
From a safety perspective, that distinction is important. Alcohol and illicit drugs can clearly affect someone’s ability to work safely, but so can fatigue, prescription medication, illness, stress, dehydration and a range of other factors. If an organisation’s entire approach to managing impairment focuses on drug and alcohol testing alone, there is a real risk that other equally significant causes of impairment are overlooked.
The hospitality industry demonstrates just how complex these issues can become. Alcohol is not simply a workplace hazard; it is often the product being sold. Staff spend their shifts serving alcohol, working licensed functions and regularly finishing work late at night. Introducing testing may form part of the solution, but organisations also need to consider supervision, workplace culture, fatigue, training, clear expectations and whether managers have the confidence to intervene when they genuinely believe somebody is not fit for work.
Another question I often ask clients is what they intend to do if somebody actually returns a positive result. There is usually a pause because many organisations have spent considerable time discussing whether they should introduce testing, but very little time considering what happens afterwards. Drug and alcohol testing should never be viewed simply as a mechanism for identifying employees to dismiss. Once an issue has been identified, the organisation has legal obligations, workplace obligations and, quite frankly, human obligations that need to be considered.
The appropriate response will depend entirely on the circumstances. Was the person impaired whilst at work? Is this a first occurrence? Is prescription medication involved? Is there evidence of dependency? Does the organisation have access to an Employee Assistance Program or rehabilitation services? Is the worker seeking help before an incident has occurred? These are not decisions that can be made simply by looking at the result of a test. They require investigation, procedural fairness and, where appropriate, genuine support alongside accountability. A policy that explains how testing will occur but says very little about what happens when somebody needs help is only telling half the story.
I also have regular conversations with organisations whose employees spend much of their working day on the road. The immediate reaction is often that workplace drug and alcohol testing is the obvious answer. My response is to remind them that those workers are already operating within a legal framework that includes roadside drug and alcohol testing by police. That does not remove an employer’s obligations, but it does require organisations to think carefully about what additional workplace risk they are trying to manage. If the concern is fatigue, unrealistic schedules, production pressures or poor supervision, introducing workplace testing alone is unlikely to address the underlying causes.
This is why I often find myself playing Devil’s Advocate. Not because I am opposed to drug and alcohol testing, but because I want organisations to think beyond the test itself. Effective risk management is rarely about relying on one administrative control. It is about understanding the risk, selecting appropriate controls and ensuring those controls are supported by competent leadership, clear procedures, education, consultation and a workplace culture that encourages people to speak up before an incident occurs.
So, if your organisation is currently asking whether it should introduce drug and alcohol testing, I would encourage you to ask one question before making that decision.
What risk are you actually trying to manage?
The answer to that question may well determine whether testing is the right control, or whether the real solution lies somewhere else entirely.
