Is Remote Work Better for the Planet?
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically altered work norms, ushering in widespread acceptance of remote and hybrid work models. Can this shift be good for climate change?
When discussing industries contributing to pollution and carbon emissions, factories with smoking chimneys often come to mind as primary sources of carbon dioxide. However, office activities such as lighting, air conditioning, computer usage, and commuting also significantly contribute to carbon emissions and global climate change. Yes, you hear it correctly, "going to work" may indeed impose a substantial burden on the planet.
Recently, researchers from Cornell and Microsoft found that switching from working on-site to working remotely five days a week led to a 54% reduction in a worker’s employment-related carbon footprint. On top of that, hybrid workers who are working from home between two and four days per week can cut emissions by between 11% and 29%. Surprisingly, they also found that emissions were only reduced by 2% when people worked from home one day a week and commuted the other four days.
According to a 2023 study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, remote work accounted for a mere 7% of the workforce in 2019. Fast forward to the present, and the landscape has dramatically shifted, with 42% of workers now engaged in full-time remote work in the United States, as outlined in a policy brief by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. As we navigate post-crisis recovery, companies are actively exploring diverse models of remote work to adapt to the evolving work landscape.
The PNAS study analyzed data from Microsoft and other sources to examine five aspects of work, comparing fully remote, fully in-office, and hybrid arrangements. It investigated information technology usage, office and home energy consumption, commuting methods, and non-commute travel patterns.
The main contributors to the carbon footprint for onsite and hybrid workers, according to the study, are travel and office energy use. That’s no surprise to researchers quantifying the impact of remote work on the environment, but Cornell and Microsoft used survey data and modeling to incorporate factors sometimes overlooked when calculating the carbon footprint, including residential energy use based on time-use allocation, non-commute distance and mode of transportation, communications device usage, number of household members and office configuration, such as seat sharing and building size.
Other notable findings and observations include:
Non-commute travel, such as trips to social and recreational activities, becomes more significant as the number of remote workdays increases.
Seat sharing among hybrid workers under full-building attendance can reduce carbon footprint by 28%.
The effects of remote and hybrid work on communications technologies such as computer, phone, and internet usage have negligible impacts on the overall carbon footprint.
Exploring why employees working from home one day a week saw only a minimal 2% reduction in their carbon footprint, the authors pointed to factors such as home energy consumption and non-commute travel, both contributors to carbon emissions. Unlike centralized office systems, many home setups lack energy-efficient infrastructure.
Additionally, the study highlighted that offices with frequent employee presence often lack shared resources, unlike those with staggered schedules. The practice of "seat sharing," where workers share workspaces, was found to significantly reduce climate pollution by 28%.
However, the environmental benefits of remote work are contingent on various factors, including individual lifestyle choices, commuting patterns, and the configuration of home and office environments. Achieving sustainability in remote work requires careful considerations, such as promoting sustainable transportation options, reducing residential energy consumption, and optimizing building occupancy.
