Background
Alcohol misuse afflicts a substantial part of the working population. In the USA, 6.2% of adults working full-time reported heavy drinking in 1999 [
1]. In Canada, 22% to 33% of employees exceeded the Canadian low-risk alcohol guidelines, 7% to 8% were episodic heavy drinkers on a weekly basis [
2,
3], and 22% reported drinking alcohol at work [
4]. Alcohol misuse is of great concern for employers and society since it has been associated with absenteeism and work injuries [
3,
5‐
8], as well as with mental health problems like psychological distress [
9‐
16].
Occupation and work organization conditions appear to be mechanisms that explain differentials in worker drinking. However, the contributions of factors outside work, like family situation and personal characteristics, are rarely taken into account in occupational alcohol studies. Consequently, the extent to which occupation and work organization conditions independently contribute to the level of alcohol intake still deserves attention. This paper addresses this issue by examining the contribution of occupation and work organization conditions to patterns of alcohol intake in the workforce. It is based on a social-action model that takes into account agent personality, structures of daily life, and macro social structures.
Previous studies
According to some studies, variations in alcohol intake are related to position in the occupational structure, as well as to work organization conditions in the workplace. As far as occupation is concerned, managers, blue- and white-collar workers, farmers, and fishermen appear to have more alcohol-related problems than do other workers [
6,
12,
13,
17‐
24]. However, the overall contribution of occupation, per se, seems to be very limited [
2,
12,
13].
As for work organization conditions, occupational and organizational cultural norms, as well as work strain defined relative to alienation and stress [
2,
12,
13,
25‐
29], have been found to be associated with higher levels of alcohol intake. Studies report associations with skill utilization [
30,
31], decision authority [
32‐
34], physical [
35‐
37] and psychological demands [
28,
36‐
39], number of hours worked [
17,
40], irregular work schedule [
4,
18], social support at work [
34,
41], workplace harassment [
42], and gratifications [
28,
43,
44].
Beyond the workplace itself, however, some studies have identified contributions from factors linked to family, social network, and individual characteristics. At the family level, being in a couple [
18,
25,
28,
41,
44‐
47], having children at home [
48], having to cope with work-family conflicts [
11,
49‐
51], and household income [
51] were associated with variations in alcohol intake. Concerning social networks outside work, having a variety of sources of social support and actively participating in such networks tended to lower alcohol-related problems [
33,
47]. When it comes to individual characteristics, alcohol intake was more marked among males [
12,
13,
36,
41,
44‐
47,
52] but decreased with age [
28,
34,
40,
45,
47,
52]. Alcohol intake has also been associated with education [
23,
25,
41], physical health [
33], and smoking [
28].
The literature reviewed here thus suggests that occupation and work organization conditions could play an important role in alcohol intake and, more broadly, in the problematic use of alcohol. At the same time, though, the literature highlights possible contributions by factors outside the workplace itself and the influence of individual characteristics. However, earlier studies (presented above) have encountered considerable difficulty incorporating, theoretically and empirically, various elements of the social environment (work, family, social networks). Previous studies, moreover, have been unable to include a broad range of workplace conditions to which individuals are subjected in their productive activity, just as they have not been able to take simultaneously into account occupational position and work organization conditions. Most of the studies, moreover, have been gender-specific and male-oriented or conducted on specific occupations, which makes generalizing results to the entire workforce problematic.
Theoretical model and hypotheses
Alcohol use is not a damaging behaviour per se. Moderate alcohol intake is associated with better cardiovascular health and reduced mortality and may provide psychological benefits such as better subjective health, mood enhancement, stress reduction, sociability, social integration, mental health, long-term cognitive functioning, higher income, and lower absenteeism [
36,
53]. High levels of alcohol intake lead to reduced benefits, implying that alcohol use and misuse must thus be distinguished analytically.
In order to explain alcohol use and misuse, the theoretical model employed in this study conceptualizes the individual as an agent embedded in a social environment composed of structures with which people have to deal in everyday life. These relationships take place in a social environment defined by social, political, economic, and cultural contexts specific to a given society. The ways people relate to the social environment can be sources of well-being, but also sources of suffering that can affect drinking habits. Social structures and agent personality define conditions of social action [
54‐
57] that place relationships of reciprocity-interaction at the centre of the action, and, together, determine a set of constraints and resources that shapes the contingencies, the locations, and the opportunities to which individuals have access. The relationships between agent and structure can bring about unintended consequences, such that action can lead to results that agents and actors had not sought or anticipated [
55,
56].
Alcohol use and misuse may be viewed as an unintended consequence of action influenced by the constraints-resources jointly brought to bear by agents and social structures. Constraints may be likened to stressors that have the potential to affect individual capacities for adaptation [
58‐
60] and to cause physiological and mental imbalances [
61], whereas resources provide protection to the agent when dealing with stressors in the environment. However, resources do not necessarily prove effective for everyone. In some cases, they may have no effect, whereas in others they may merely allow individuals to reduce the effects of constraints. Constraints-resources imply the existence of both additive and moderating influences on the way stress is experienced [
62].
Constraints-resources influencing action come simultaneously from three main levels of social life: macro social structures, structures of daily life, and the personality of agents. Macro social structures are social arrangements tied to the economic, political, and cultural system, as well as to the system of stratification, diversification, and social integration of a society at the national level [
57]. It is at this level that the occupational structure arises, which takes the form of a group of positions differentiated by the nature of the work to be accomplished, the tasks carried out, the responsibilities conferred on the individual, and the sector of activity in which the work is performed [
63]. Several occupational positions are thus included in a given labour market, among which constraints-resources are unevenly distributed. In this regard, some studies have revealed important variations in work organization conditions by type of occupation [
64,
65]. This unequal distribution of constraints-resources could give rise to experiences of stress and promote alcohol use and misuse among agents.
Structures of daily life (work, family, social networks) constitute intermediate arrangements between individuals and macro social structures that organize the basis of everyday life, routines, and affective ties [
57]. In the workplace, the constraints-resources associated with alcohol use and misuse are linked to four main parameters of work organization [
14,
15]: task design (skill utilization, decision authority), work demands (physical: from the environment and from efforts made by the individual; psychological: time pressure, quantity, conflict; contractual: hours worked, work schedule), social relations (harassment, unionization), and gratifications (job security, pay, prestige). The effects of constraints-resources at work could also vary according to the position held by the agent in the occupational structure, since this structure influences the distribution of constraints-resources for individuals in the workplace. The effect of working conditions would thus be moderated by the place the agent holds in the occupational structure. As for the links between family and the social network outside the workplace, on the one hand, and alcohol use and misuse, on the other, constraints-resources components define the structure around parental and marital status, strain in marital and parental relationships, household income levels, and the availability of support from the agent's social network to deal with problems issuing from the agent's action in society.
The last level is that of the personality of the agent, which represents the constraints-resources that the individual carries into action, and is related to his/her reflectiveness, rationality, creativity, demographic characteristics, affect, body, biology, representations, perceptions, motivations, habits, and attitudes [
54,
56,
57,
66]. The personality of the agent, from a sociological point of view, is not a representation of the individual taken only on the level of traits or personality structure as understood in psychology, but rather an overall representation of conditions characterizing the person that is constructed around the body, the mind, and the social environment [
54,
67]. To explain alcohol use and misuse, the model thus postulates that characteristics of the personality of the agent are contributing factors and may modify the way work relates to alcohol intake. These characteristics are associated with gender, age, physical health status, lifestyle habits (tobacco use, physical activity), and stressful life events from childhood. This last characteristic might be an interesting factor to analyze given that it has been related to mental health imbalances [
68].
Three main hypotheses about the role of the workplace in alcohol use and misuse emerge from this model. H1) Occupational structure and workplace constraints-resources contribute independently to alcohol use and misuse. H2) The effect of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse are moderated by the position of the agent in the occupational structure. H3) Agent personality, family, and social network outside work modulate the effects of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse.
Overall, these hypotheses assume associations to be equivalent for both genders. However, if we assume differentials in drinking and an unequal distribution of occupations and work-organization conditions between genders, we must then evaluate any moderating effect that gender might have on the relationship between work and alcohol use and misuse.
Results
Table
2 and
3 present the results of two multinomial regression models. Table
2 reports chi-square tests for the significance of each variable in the models, and Table
3 presents odds-ratios and 95% intervals. In Model 1, the unadjusted effects of occupation and workplace variables indicate statistical significance. Compared to non-qualified blue-collars, being a qualified blue-collar and being a victim of workplace harassment are associated with both low- and high-risk drinking. Skill utilization and prestige are correlated with low-risk drinkers and decision authority with high-risk drinkers.
Table 2
Chi-square tests for each variable in the multinomial regression models of alcohol use and misuse
| χ2
| df | χ2
| df |
OCCUPATIONS
| 41.31** | 22 | 44.49** | 22 |
TASK DESIGN
Skill utilization | 5.98* | 2 | 4.75 | 2 |
Decision authority | 6.56* | 2 | 3.06 | 2 |
DEMANDS
Physical demands | 2.21 | 2 | 1.61 | 2 |
Psychological demands | 0.92 | 2 | 1.55 | 2 |
Hours worked | 1.50 | 2 | 0.89 | 2 |
Irregular work schedule | 1.32 | 2 | 1.74 | 2 |
SOCIAL RELATIONS
Harassment | 25.26** | 2 | 26.08** | 2 |
Unionization | 1.79 | 2 | 4.44 | 2 |
GRATIFICATIONS
Job insecurity | 1.20 | 2 | 0.56 | 2 |
Performance pay | 3.88 | 2 | 2.63 | 2 |
Prestige | 11.78** | 2 | 2.70 | 2 |
FAMILY
Marital status (living together) | | | 15.40** | 2 |
Number of minor children | | | 22.46** | 2 |
Household income | | | 53.00** | 2 |
Strained marital relations | | | 2.61 | 2 |
Strained parental relations | | | 11.70** | 2 |
SOCIAL NETWORK
Social support (outside work) | | | 21.49** | 2 |
AGENT
Gender (female) | | | 75.76** | 2 |
Age | | | 4.06 | 2 |
Physical health | | | 4.27 | 2 |
Cigarettes | | | 66.50** | 2 |
Physical activities | | | 6.94* | 2 |
Stressful childhood events | | | 1.50 | 2 |
Table 3
Odds-ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the multinomial regression models of alcohol use and misuse
| Low-risk1
n = 5179 | High-risk1
n = 1117 | Low-risk1
n = 5179 | High-risk1
n = 1117 |
|
OR
|
95% CI
|
OR
|
95% CI
|
OR
|
95% CI
|
OR
|
95% CI
|
OCCUPATIONS
2
Upper managers | 0.96 | 0.52–1.77 | 1.41 | 0.64–3.11 | 1.35 | 0.75–2.45 | 2.39* | 1.07–5.34 |
Middle managers | 1.47 | 0.99–2.20 | 1.33 | 0.77–2.32 | 1.84** | 1.24–2.75 | 1.87* | 1.05–3.32 |
Front-line supervisors | 1.12 | 0.81–1.55 | 1.05 | 0.65–1.70 | 1.28 | 0.92–1.77 | 1.44 | 0.88–2.37 |
Professionals | 0.94 | 0.60–1.49 | 0.86 | 0.45–1.65 | 1.38 | 0.87–2.19 | 1.67 | 0.85–3.31 |
Semi-professionals | 1.03 | 0.69–1.52 | 1.07 | 0.61–1.89 | 1.32 | 0.89–1.96 | 1.70 | 0.94–3.07 |
Technicians | 1.26 | 0.78–2.04 | 1.07 | 0.53–2.17 | 1.53 | 0.94–2.48 | 1.60 | 0.75–3.41 |
Qualified white-collars | 0.93 | 0.69–1.26 | 0.73 | 0.45–1.18 | 1.26 | 0.92–1.72 | 1.18 | 0.71–1.97 |
Semi-qualified white-collars | 1.19 | 0.95–1.50 | 1.30 | 0.91–1.86 | 1.44** | 1.13–1.83 | 1.71** | 1.18–2.49 |
Non-qualified white-collars | 1.07 | 0.80–1.42 | 0.87 | 0.52–1.48 | 1.34 | 0.99–1.81 | 1.27 | 0.74–2.19 |
Qualified blue-collars | 1.38* | 1.05–1.81 | 1.73** | 1.16–2.58 | 1.48** | 1.13–1.95 | 2.11* | 1.41–3.16 |
Semi-qualified blue-collars | 1.00 | 0.79–1.25 | 1.05 | 0.70–1.56 | 1.08 | 0.86–1.36 | 1.21 | 0.81–1.81 |
TASK DESIGN
Skill utilization | 1.02* | 1.00–1.05 | 1.03 | 0.99–1.07 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 | 1.03 | 0.99–1.06 |
Decision authority | 1.03 | 0.99–1.06 | 1.07** | 1.01–1.12 | 1.02 | 0.98–1.05 | 1.05 | 0.99–1.10 |
DEMANDS
Physical demands | 1.00 | 0.99–1.02 | 1.02 | 0.99–1.04 | 0.99 | 0.97–1.01 | 1.00 | 0.98–1.03 |
Psychological demands | 1.00 | 0.98–1.01 | 0.99 | 0.96–1.01 | 1.00 | 0.98–1.02 | 0.98 | 0.96–1.01 |
Hours worked | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.00 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.00 |
Irregular work schedule | 1.04 | 0.98–1.10 | 1.00 | 0.90–1.10 | 1.03 | 0.97–1.10 | 0.97 | 0.88–1.07 |
SOCIAL RELATIONS
Harassment | 1.18* | 1.02–1.37 | 1.76** | 1.42–2.20 | 1.27** | 1.09–1.47 | 1.78** | 1.42–2.24 |
Unionization | 0.96 | 0.84–1.09 | 0.89 | 0.72–1.09 | 0.90 | 0.79–1.03 | 0.83 | 0.68–1.03 |
GRATIFICATIONS
Job insecurity | 0.92 | 0.78–1.09 | 0.98 | 0.76–1.27 | 0.95 | 0.80–1.12 | 0.97 | 0.74–1.27 |
Performance pay | 1.03 | 0.96–1.10 | 1.10 | 1.00–1.22 | 1.01 | 0.94–1.08 | 1.07 | 0.96–1.19 |
Prestige | 1.02** | 1.01–1.03 | 1.01 | 1.00–1.03 | 1.01 | 0.99–1.02 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.02 |
FAMILY
Marital status (living together) | | | | | 0.83* | 0.71–0.97 | 0.64** | 0.50–0.81 |
Number of minor children | | | | | 1.10* | 1.02–1.20 | 0.80** | 0.68–0.93 |
Household income | | | | | 1.26** | 1.17–1.36 | 1.41** | 1.24–1.61 |
Strained marital relations | | | | | 0.97 | 0.90–1.05 | 1.09 | 0.95–1.25 |
Strained parental relations | | | | | 1.05 | 0.95–1.17 | 1.33** | 1.13–1.57 |
SOCIAL NETWORK
Social support (outside work) | | | | | 1.02** | 1.01–1.04 | 1.06** | 1.03–1.09 |
AGENT
Gender (female) | | | | | 0.57** | 0.49–0.65 | 0.48** | 0.39–0.60 |
Age | | | | | 1.03 | 1.00–1.06 | 1.02 | 0.97–1.07 |
Physical health | | | | | 0.94 | 0.89–1.00 | 0.95 | 0.86–1.04 |
Cigarettes | | | | | 1.00 | 0.99–1.00 | 1.03** | 1.02–1.04 |
Physical activities | | | | | 1.04* | 1.01–1.07 | 1.04 | 0.99–1.08 |
Stressful childhood events | | | | | 0.99 | 0.94–1.04 | 1.02 | 0.95–1.11 |
χ2 (df) | 220.28 (44)** | 511.11 (68)** |
Model 2 looks at the personality of the agent and other structures of daily life (family, social network) as mediators of work factors. Overall, this model gives support to the first hypothesis (H1). It shows that qualified blue-collar workers and workplace harassment still contribute to type of drinker. However, the associations among skill utilization, decision authority, and prestige are mediated by agent personality, family, and social network outside the workplace, thus supporting the third hypothesis (H3). Furthermore, and lending added support to the third hypothesis (H3), the introduction of these latter factors into the model adds suppressive effects because new occupations appear to be related to the outcome. Upper managers are now associated with high-risk drinking, and front-line supervisors and semi-qualified white-collars are also now correlated with both low-risk and high-risk drinking. Finally, gender, marital status, number of minor children, household income, and social support outside the workplace contribute to both low-risk and high-risk drinking. Smoking is related only to high-risk drinking and physical activities only to low-risk drinking.
Based on Model 2, tests of the interaction between occupations and workplace variables revealed that only the interaction between occupation and harassment, which gives modest support to the second hypothesis (H2), is significant (χ2 = 36.71, df = 22, p = 0.025). In Model 2, the overall effect of harassment on high-risk drinking is OR = 1.78, and the interactions reveal stronger associations for non-qualified blue-collars (OR = 2.95) and semi-professionals (OR = 2.21). The association is smaller for non-qualified white-collars (OR = 1.28) and non-significant for technicians (OR = 0.97).
In the final analysis, the interactions between work and gender are non-significant. The interaction between gender and occupation reaches χ2 = 14.44, df = 22, p = 0.885 and χ2 = 5.65, df = 20, p = 0.999 for gender by work organization conditions.
Discussion
This study has examined the specific contributions of occupation and work organization conditions to alcohol use and misuse among workers. The findings support the hypothesis that position in the occupational structure, and to a lesser extent workplace constraints-resources, are associated with individual alcohol intake beyond the contributions of family situation, social support outside the workplace, and personal characteristics. The effect of workplace constraints-resources did not vary with position in the occupational structure, with the sole exception of workplace harassment. Nor were the effects of occupation and work organization conditions a function of gender. The results confirm the relevance of a theoretical model that elaborates on the problem of alcohol use and misuse as being the product of stress caused by the constraints and the resources brought to bear simultaneously by agent personality, structures of daily life, and macro social structures.
At the macro social structures level, occupation appears to be an important predictor of alcohol use and misuse, and has a greater influence than work organization conditions themselves. Low-risk drinking is not, per se, a damaging condition. Middle managers, semi-qualified white-collars, and qualified blue-collars had 44% to 85% greater odds of being low-risk drinkers than did non-qualified blue-collars. For some of these workers, alcohol could be used as a tension-reduction mechanism associated with pleasure and well-being [
36,
53]. However, for other workers in the same occupations, the stress experienced may be so high that increases in alcohol consumption act as a tension-reduction mechanism associated more with reduced benefits. For these workers, the odds of high-risk drinking increased from 71% to 111%. It is noteworthy that upper mangers also were a high-risk group, given that rates of high-risk drinking were 139% higher among upper managers.
Overall, these results parallel those obtained in previous research [
6,
12,
13,
17‐
24], but the contribution of occupation seems stronger compared to what was previously reported [
2,
12]. Furthermore, occupations could also play an indirect role in stimulating alcohol use and misuse, given the unequal distribution of work organization conditions by type of occupation [
64,
65]. This uneven distribution raises questions about how occupational structure could also act indirectly on alcohol use and misuse by conditioning constraints-resources in the family, social network, and agent personality. Based on the results obtained here, occupation may moderate the relationship between social relations at work and alcohol intake because occupation may interact with workplace harassment and high-risk drinking. However, the moderating role of occupation is very limited and thus only partially supports the second hypothesis (H2).
The stress levels generated by the constraints-resources of the structures of daily life have also clearly proved important for understanding variations in individual alcohol use and misuse. However, the contribution of work organization conditions in explaining this outcome appears very small when the analysis takes into account occupation, other structures of daily life, and individual characteristics. Using such a model, only workplace harassment, as has also been found elsewhere [
42], shows itself to be associated with 27% greater odds of low-risk drinking and 78% greater odds of high-risk drinking. However, although the association with high-risk drinking is itself moderated by occupation, this result has only borderline significance. The results obtained here thus do not support the contentions of earlier studies reporting associations between many aspects of work organization conditions and alcohol intake. This absence of corroboration exists because previous studies did not take simultaneous account of occupation, family, social network, and diversity of individual characteristics [
4,
17,
18,
28,
30‐
41,
43].
The data support the theoretical model concerning the potentially stressful role of constraints-resources for the other structures of daily life, which include family and social network outside the workplace. At the family level, being in a couple reduces the odds of both low-risk and high-risk drinking; the association is stronger for high-risk drinking. However, the number of minor children in the household affects this association according to type drinker. For each additional child, the odds of low-risk drinking increases by 8%, but the odds of high-risk drinking decreases by 20%. By contrast, if strained parental relations prevail among workers, the odds of high-risk drinking goes up by 33%. For its part, household income sufficiency is related to both types of drinking; the effect is stronger for high-risk drinkers. As for the social network outside the workplace, the results show an increment in the odds of both low-risk and high-risk drinking, which seems to contradict what has been reported in earlier studies [
33,
47] that employed limited conceptual frameworks.
Last, the results confirm the role of the personality of the agent in the theoretical model. This variable acts to complement structures of daily life and macro social structures for understanding alcohol use and misuse in the workforce. The results show that low-risk and high-risk drinking are greater among men; smoking increases the odds of high-risk drinking; and physical activities are associated with low-risk drinking. The analysis carried out here, however, does not support previous research reporting effects for age [
28,
34,
40,
45,
47,
52] and physical health [
33] when occupation, work organization conditions, family situation, and the social network outside the workplace place are taken into account. Likewise, when used as an exploratory variable, stressful childhood events are not significant.
Overall, the results are clearly supportive of the third hypothesis (H3). Agent personality, family, and social network outside the workplace mediate and suppress [
79,
80] the effects of certain occupations and workplace-organization conditions. Mediation can be observed for skill utilization, decision authority, and occupational prestige. These results suggest that task design and certain gratifications at work do not seem to contribute directly to alcohol intake when a broader conceptual framework capturing the complexity of individual action is used. However, this broader framework also captures the effects of other occupations that do not show up in the unadjusted model because suppression effects are revealed for upper managers (high-risk drinking), and for front-line supervisors and semi-qualified white-collars (low-risk and high-risk drinking).
Finally, the results do not support moderating effects associated with gender. When the model includes the diversity of worker constraints-resources that occur in macro social structures, structures of daily life, and agent personality, the associations between occupation and alcohol drinking and between work organization conditions and drinking are the same for males and females. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting non-significant gender interactions [
2,
12] and more broadly with recent studies showing no gender-associated differentials for occupation, work stressors, and mental health [
14,
15,
81‐
83].
The present study nevertheless has limitations. First, the data are cross-sectional, which implies that the relationships observed cannot be interpreted causally and will need to be replicated longitudinally. Second, the fact that the analyses are limited to available QHSS indicators implies that variables such as social support in the workplace, and alcohol norms related to occupational and organizational culture, were not measured, whereas they have been linked to alcohol intake in other studies. Third, the QHSS did not take into account workplace factors having to do with management and supervisory styles or occupational health and safety resources. These elements are potentially important determinants of quality of life and workplace well-being that can be associated with alcohol use and misuse. Fourth, individual alcohol consumption data reported across seven days in the QHSS-1987 did not specify the pattern of consumption over the seven days. It is therefore impossible to distinguish consumption during weekends from that during the rest of the week. It is reasonable to expect that, in general, alcohol intake is greater during weekends, whereas among individuals experiencing psychological distress, consumption patterns might be consistently higher for all days of the week.
Fifth, measurements are assumed to be free of estimation errors, which is almost never the case with auto-reported data. This is particularly true for alcohol intake, which has been found to be under-reported [
84,
85]. Sixth, the hypothesis that an occupation-selection bias exists, such that workers might choose occupations on the basis of their expectations about the acceptability of certain alcohol-intake levels, could not be rejected. Only a longitudinal study could address this question. However, one could easily argue that the main process motivating individual choice of occupation is more likely to be based primarily on the adequacy of personal resources for meeting job requirements (e.g., schooling, experience, qualifications, personality-based expectations). Last, while the large sample size increased the power of the study and by the same token increased the odds of finding significant variables having very small association with the outcome, correction for design effects by an amount of 41% guarded against this potential problem.
Conclusion
Based on the available data in the QHSS, this study suggests that occupation and social relations at work that yield to harassment are, in and of themselves, important factors associated with alcohol use and misuse in the workforce. Confirming the theoretical model, which posits a combined role for stress emerging from constraints-resources embedded in macro social structures, structures of daily life, and agent personality, will require expanding future research approaches to the study of alcohol in the workforce to avoid erroneous conclusions about the role of the workplace. Integrating family situation, support from the social network outside the workplace, and a diversity of individual characteristics will help identify dynamics inherent in occupation and workplaces that manifest as alcohol-related problems. However, further research will be needed to specify how firms create constraints-resources for agents. Constraints-resources vary from company to company, and indeed from department to department within companies. Management structures and styles, as well as the mechanisms set up by organizations to coordinate production with human resources priorities, unquestionably constitute factors worthy of more study because they can predispose workers to alcohol use and particularly alcohol misuse in the work environment.
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
AM contributed to data analysis and the writing of the paper. AM read and approved the final manuscript.