Corporate directives enforcing employees' physical return to workplaces may impede certain presumed significant corporate objectives.
Positively Pondering the Green Impacts of Working from Home
In the unprecedented shift of office workers trading their swanky cubicles for home comforts during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, many started questioning the hours previously spent enduring dreadful commutes. With the prolific use of Zoom meetings, impromptu bird songs becoming the soundtrack to once-bustling city streets, and a temporary decrease in global travel emissions by a whopping 7 percent in 2020, a glimmer of hope emerged amid the gloom.
However, as the world adapted, emissions resumed their upward surge in 2021 as people gradually resumed some semblance of normality. Yet, the post-pandemic office landscape has drastically changed. Once a rarity, remote work has become a regular fixture for 28 percent of Americans, with 13 percent of them working full-time from home.
Recent analyses hint that remote work may expedite companies' plans to cut their carbon emissions, yet there seems to be a striking disconnect between corporate priorities and climate change considerations. "In the U.S., I'm sad to say it’s just not high on the priority list," commented Kate Lister, founder of Global Workplace Analytics. "It gets up there, and then it drops again for the next shiny object." Commuter travel, categorized as a company's "Scope 3" emissions, is often overlooked, despite contributing an average of three-quarters to the business world's greenhouse gas emissions.
A 10 percent increase in working remotely could slash annual carbon emissions by an astounding 192 million metric tons, according to a study published in Nature Cities. This would decrease emissions from the country's most polluting sector, transportation, by a striking 10 percent. These findings align with other research revealing that switching to remote work dramatically cuts a person's carbon footprint by an impressive 54 percent, even when accounting for non-commute travel and residential energy consumption.
Curtis Sparrer, a principal and co-founder of Bospar, a San Francisco-based company letting employees work from home since its inception in 2015, voiced his concern over the "return to office" trend. "It seems like a very obvious solution to a very pressing and real problem," he said. "And I am concerned that this whole ‘return to office’ thing is getting in the way."
Yet, many companies are insisting on regular in-person attendance. Last year, tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Meta mandated employees to attend the office three days a week or face punishment, such as a lower chance of promotions. Zoom, the pandemic's cherished video conferencing platform, even commands employees within 50 miles of the office to commute two days a week.
While interaction with coworkers in person offers a social lift and incentive to dress up in the morning, the majority of American commuters opt for cars instead of environmentally-friendly alternatives like cycling or public transportation. A recent poll from Bospar revealed that two-thirds of Americans are driving to work, mostly in gas-guzzling vehicles.
Surprisingly, the climate benefits slide away as the need for office space escalates. Even a two to four-day remote work schedule can slash emissions by 11 to 29 percent compared to traditional full-time office work; however, remote work only one day a week can shave just 2 percent off emissions. Maintaining physical office space is a significant drain on energy, requiring constant heating, cooling, and lighting.
Upon considering whether companies should be permitted to tout green credentials while compelling employees to commute, over half of Millennials and Gen Zers deemed it hypocritical for corporations to celebrate Earth Day while insisting on in-person work. Disney, for instance, recognized Earth Month in April with an environmental campaign but ordered employees to attend the office four days a week last year. Nike, on the other hand, released an Earth Day collection of "sustainable" leather shoes while its CEO argued that remote work stifles creativity.
"We are entering a time of magical thinking, where people seem to think that this is enough, and it's not," stated Sparrer. "We all got to experience what it's like to work from home, and we know how it works, and we know how it can be improved."
While remote work can present environmental challenges, especially in terms of the strain on public transportation systems, with 10 percent of the workforce opting to work from home, transit systems could lose $3.7 billion annually and experience a 27 percent drop in fare revenue[1][2]. Additionally, there are concerns that remote work might drive people towards the suburbs, where carbon footprints tend to be larger than in urban areas.
As corporate leaders retire, Lister anticipates that the insistence on returning to the office will fade, leaving the door open for more employers to embrace remote work as an environmentally-friendly, productivity-boosting, and employee-satisfying solution.
This story was originally published by Grist and co-published with Fast Company. Show your support by subscribing to Grist's weekly newsletter[6]. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to empowering individuals with knowledge about climate solutions and envisioning a just future. To learn more about the organization, visit Grist.org[7].
Notes:
- The estimated 762 billion pounds of CO2 generated from U.S. daily commuting is based on data from the U.S. Department of Energy and California Environmental Protection Agency's Commute Mode Split programs[2].
- Pre-pandemic U.S. commuting data is from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey[1].
- Energy savings and resource conservation advantages of remote work are discussed in the Cornell University and Microsoft study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior[3].
- Concerns about productivity and corporate culture in remote work are analyzed in the Cornell University and Microsoft study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior[4].
- The increased preference for flexible work arrangements post-pandemic is based on a survey by Mckinsey & Company, with 91 percent of employees expressing a preference for hybrid work models[5].
- Subscribe to Grist's newsletter: https://www.grist.org/sign-up/
- Learn more about Grist: https://grist.org/
- The shift to working from home during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns, accompanied by an increase in videoconferencing, led to a decrease in global travel emissions and impromptu bird songs replacing the usual city sounds.
- In the post-pandemic office landscape, remote work has become more common, with 13 percent of Americans working full-time from home, potentially expediting companies' plans to reduce their carbon emissions.
- A study published in Nature Cities suggests that a 10 percent increase in working remotely could slash annual carbon emissions by 192 million metric tons, significantly decreasing emissions from the transportation sector.
- Despite the potential for environmental benefits, many companies mandate regular in-person attendance, even though the majority of American commuters opt for cars instead of environmentally friendlier options, contributing substantially to emissions.
