Edited by Attila Borsos, Sunday, 8 Mar 2020, 18:48
(Remote working - very convenient but how sustainable? )
Home vs office working - more convenient, but how sustainable?
Most people would probably agree that in light of the current environmental challenges and climate emergency, a radical rethink of our work practices is required. Besides maintaining a better work/life balance, working from home can come with many environmental benefits. However, according to a recent UK survey (2019) published by the BBC, the overall environmental impact of the choice of workplace will significantly vary depending on the season (winter/summer).
Many of the potential individual benefits are obvious, including saving time and money on commuting, food and clothing. No surprise, that 80% of millennial women would be more than happy to work from home (2018). Moreover, in terms of sustainability and saving the planet, remote workers' overall energy usage and carbon emissions can be much lower than office workers’, but this is not guaranteed. The recently released WPS report contains information obtained from their employees, over a 12 months period, as well as average figures from national statistics (from DfT & Defra). The report’s ultimate conclusion is that working from home in the summer and from the office in winter are the best options, if we are to achieve a zero-carbon economy. In fact, during summer, remote working saves the typical British commuter around 400kg of carbon emissions, which equates to approx. 5% of their annual carbon footprint. The reason being is that the CO2 emissions produced by commuting and office-based work well exceed those generated by using energy at home.
Garden office (Photo by AB)
In general, large office buildings and private transport consume a vast amount of non-renewable energy (fossil fuels). Travel, heating, cooling, lighting and operating electrical appliances - all add up and contribute to global climate change. Of course, the source of energy may vary in case of each company and each household. It can also be green, clean and renewable. The truth is that the UK’s climate requires workplace heating for many months, which can outweigh the environmental benefits of remote working. The WPS study (WPS data sheet, 2019) compared three scenarios:
A. 200 staff working from the office all year-round;
B. 200 staff working from home, heating their whole house (80 m2 average flat size);
C. 200 staff working from home, heating only their ‘home office’ (25m2 space).
The results are as follows (tonnes CO2 per year per employee): A. 1.4, B. 2.5, C. 0.6.
Option C seems much more favourable to the environment than A, and B indicates nearly 80% more CO2 than option A.
Office building to be inserted (Photo by AB)
Some international companies, like Zapier, choose carbon offsetting as a way of becoming carbon-neutral. Last year, they managed to offset an estimated 647 tonnes of carbon emissions through reforestation, on behalf of their 320 remote-working employees in 27 countries (BBC, 2020). This figure included running the servers, home offices and even team retreats. As the WPS report indicates, home-working can require just as much energy consumption if not more than multi-storey office buildings, depending on the personal circumstances and the level of eco-consciousness of each individual. Infrastructure innovations can make offices highly energy-efficient, but similarly, home improvements (e.g. solar panels, wall insulation, smart meters and thermostat) will significantly lower carbon emissions, which will benefit not just employees but whole families 24/7.
Journalism story
(Remote working - very convenient but how sustainable? )
Home vs office working - more convenient, but how sustainable?
Most people would probably agree that in light of the current environmental challenges and climate emergency, a radical rethink of our work practices is required. Besides maintaining a better work/life balance, working from home can come with many environmental benefits. However, according to a recent UK survey (2019) published by the BBC, the overall environmental impact of the choice of workplace will significantly vary depending on the season (winter/summer).
Many of the potential individual benefits are obvious, including saving time and money on commuting, food and clothing. No surprise, that 80% of millennial women would be more than happy to work from home (2018). Moreover, in terms of sustainability and saving the planet, remote workers' overall energy usage and carbon emissions can be much lower than office workers’, but this is not guaranteed. The recently released WPS report contains information obtained from their employees, over a 12 months period, as well as average figures from national statistics (from DfT & Defra). The report’s ultimate conclusion is that working from home in the summer and from the office in winter are the best options, if we are to achieve a zero-carbon economy. In fact, during summer, remote working saves the typical British commuter around 400kg of carbon emissions, which equates to approx. 5% of their annual carbon footprint. The reason being is that the CO2 emissions produced by commuting and office-based work well exceed those generated by using energy at home.
Garden office (Photo by AB)
In general, large office buildings and private transport consume a vast amount of non-renewable energy (fossil fuels). Travel, heating, cooling, lighting and operating electrical appliances - all add up and contribute to global climate change. Of course, the source of energy may vary in case of each company and each household. It can also be green, clean and renewable. The truth is that the UK’s climate requires workplace heating for many months, which can outweigh the environmental benefits of remote working. The WPS study (WPS data sheet, 2019) compared three scenarios:
A. 200 staff working from the office all year-round;
B. 200 staff working from home, heating their whole house (80 m2 average flat size);
C. 200 staff working from home, heating only their ‘home office’ (25m2 space).
The results are as follows (tonnes CO2 per year per employee): A. 1.4, B. 2.5, C. 0.6.
Option C seems much more favourable to the environment than A, and B indicates nearly 80% more CO2 than option A.
Office building to be inserted (Photo by AB)
Some international companies, like Zapier, choose carbon offsetting as a way of becoming carbon-neutral. Last year, they managed to offset an estimated 647 tonnes of carbon emissions through reforestation, on behalf of their 320 remote-working employees in 27 countries (BBC, 2020). This figure included running the servers, home offices and even team retreats. As the WPS report indicates, home-working can require just as much energy consumption if not more than multi-storey office buildings, depending on the personal circumstances and the level of eco-consciousness of each individual. Infrastructure innovations can make offices highly energy-efficient, but similarly, home improvements (e.g. solar panels, wall insulation, smart meters and thermostat) will significantly lower carbon emissions, which will benefit not just employees but whole families 24/7.
[560]