Is remote work actually better for the environment?

Research shows that WFH is not a clear win for the environment. Photo / 123RF

The Covid-19 pandemic gave rise to the largest remote-work "experiment" in history, accelerating a long-term trend toward flexible, remote work and digitalisation. The percentage of people working from home in the US alone rose from 5 per cent to 37 per cent during the height of the pandemic. Now, companies are experimenting with different models of remote work as we come out of the crisis. Recent surveys show that 91 per cent of remote employees would like to continue their hybrid or remote working, and 76 per cent say their employer will allow them to.

With the daily commute all but cancelled during successive Covid-19 lockdowns, many have assumed that WFH will lead to environmental sustainability gains. Indeed, such dramatic changes in mobility, production and consumption patterns temporarily reduced global CO2 emissions by 17 per cent in April 2020 compared with peak 2019 levels. But what seemed like a promising trend soon faded away: Emissions are now almost back at pre-pandemic levels.

Indeed, our research also shows that WFH is not a clear win for the environment. The net sustainability impact depends on several employee behaviours, from travel to energy use, to digital-device and waste management. It also depends on situational factors like home building and local infrastructure.

To understand WFH's sustainability implications, companies need to consider a range of environmentally relevant employee behaviours. Behavioural change across four behavioural domains can have major environmental impact when aggregated across individuals, teams, companies and industries:

Energy footprint

WFH's impact on energy use is mixed, with some studies finding a positive effect and others indicating a neutral or even a negative effect. Such effects can vary substantially by employees' individual characteristics (awareness, attitudes, family size, wealth), home infrastructure (building energy ratings, supplier) and even situational factors (geographic location and season). When companies craft remote-work policies, for instance by Subsidising home energy bills, they also need to account for sustainability effects from residential energy emissions.

Transportation footprint

Reduced commuting with WFH will undoubtedly yield environmental benefits, but there is emerging evidence of rebound effects, including increased non-work travel and more short trips. For example, in a Californian sample of employees who shifted to WFH during the Covid-19 pandemic, the decline in vehicle miles traveled was accompanied by a 26 per cent increase in the average number of trips taken. Apart from changes to the work commute, potential changes in emissions arising from business-related travel in hybrid settings (e.g., events and conferences) will also matter.

Technology footprint

One study suggests that a "typical business" user in the pre-Covid-19 period created 135 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per year from sending emails — equal to driving 320km in a family car. But the typical business person's technology needs have now changed; fewer in-person office interactions can mean more time spent communicating online. Equally problematic is that the primary short-term WFH policy adopted by several companies has been to provide employees with laptops, even at the risk of duplicating devices.

Waste footprint

In the UK, recycling increased during the first lockdown; this aligns with past research showing that employees adopt more sustainable waste practices at home than at the office. Thus, WFH may have a net positive environmental impact for waste-management behavior. But there is also a risk of increased electronic and electrical waste — an estimated 50 million tons a year globally, only 20 per cent of which is formally recycled.

Organisational leaders who care about reducing their workforces' environmental impact — and we think all leaders should — can start by designing WFH plans and policies with the following three considerations in mind:

Embed a sustainability culture

Organisations need to make sure that sustainability considerations are routinely embedded in every corporate decision. This means considering first what are the existing social norms for addressing employees' travel, technology, waste and energy emissions, and then designing ways to decrease these emissions.

For example, what initiatives, tools and tips are already available that help (or deter) employees' green behaviour at home? Is there a meeting policy that promotes remote — rather than in-person — as the default? How are leaders and managers addressing existing sustainability practices and commitments with their teams, including their remote employees?

Leaders can further help shape a sustainability culture by adhering to existing environmental policies themselves. Consider Ikea's founder, Ingvar Kamprad, who is often credited for bringing sustainability to the masses through business practices that he adhered to as well, such as not flying business class. Leaders also need to let employees choose how they implement the policies offered. Doing so will allow employees to feel supported rather than monitored, and boost employees' trust and goodwill.

Provide supportive policies

Looking at existing policies is an important first step, but it is often not enough. Organisational leaders should offer remote employees support in each of the outlined domains. This could include policies like encouraging and supporting employees to change to renewable sources of energy at home by providing access to auto-switching energy services. Employers could also provide incentives for active travel for work meetings like bike schemes; they can further offer recycling and safe disposal of duplicate or old electronic devices and e-waste through in-house drop-off centres or partnerships with upcycling companies.

Think globally, act locally

Some policies, such as automatically switching to the cheapest green energy tariffs, may be useful to all employees. But environmental footprints will vary substantially across individuals, teams, companies and industries. For example, one company's workforce might rely heavily on technology, so helping to reduce emissions from e-waste and energy is especially important. Another company's workforce might commute long distances or undertake frequent work travel; for this company the priorities should be to lower travel emissions by reducing nonessential trips, using low-carbon transport, flying economy for essential trips and carbon offsetting.

Depending on where your workforce is located, it may be more appropriate to focus on emissions reduction from cooling versus heating, or both — the point being that a one-size-fits-all approach won't work. Instead, when designing and promoting environmentally sustainable WFH policies, companies need to consider their employees' unique circumstances as well as the characteristics of their business operations.

As remote-work models become increasingly popular, fewer of employees' sustainability effects are likely to take place under employers' physical roofs, but they will still occur on their watch. It's crucial to embed a culture of sustainability by providing support, policies and leadership for employees. In doing so, organizations can ensure that WFH stacks up on a comprehensive set of sustainability measures and that they achieve their sustainability goals.

Written by: Ganga Shreedhar, Kate Laffan and Laura M. Giurge
© 2022 Harvard Business School Publishing Corp. Distributed by The New York Times Licensing Group